Ben Wallace: The Secretary of State will know that when he is routinely asked such questions, he replies via the IMC report. Can he tell the House whether he receives different intelligence on the activities of those dissident republicans from that which is published in the report?

Shaun Woodward: First, we rely so heavily on the work of the IMC because it produces a considered report, based on evidence compiled from a number of sources. Most hon. Members would agree that it has been extremely accurate and authoritative over the years since it was set up. However, in specific detail, I would simply say this. I receive, obviously, additional security information. The individual who most closely advises me on that is the Chief Constable, with whom I remain in touch, often on a daily basis.

Shaun Woodward: May I join the hon. Gentleman—I am sure that I speak for all Members—in sending our deepest sympathies to the family of Emmett Shiels? What happened yesterday was an horrific crime that should not have happened. It has left a family devastated and it does not surprise me to hear that last night more than 1,000 people took part in a vigil to remember the life of Emmett Shiels. I am encouraged to hear this morning that the police have already made two arrests and I understand that more may follow.
	In respect of the last part of the question, I believe that it does matter that we complete the process of devolution sooner rather than later for one very important reason: regrettably, there are still some dissident individuals out there who hang on to some obscure hope, with no support in the community, that they can shake that community's confidence in the future of Northern Ireland. The best thing we can all do is to work together to bring about stability and peace as soon as possible.

Alan Reid: I join the House in sending sympathy to the family of Emmett Shiels, the victim of this horrific murder.
	In its recent reports, the Independent Monitoring Commission has stressed that transition cannot continue indefinitely and that paramilitary organisations cannot continue to expect the comfort of the decommissioning legislation. How close do the Government think we are to achieving normalisation and what further steps are required before we can achieve it?

Shaun Woodward: I welcome that question not least because the hon. Gentleman has been in correspondence with me about the use of that site since October. As a result of his intervention, I visited the site some months ago. It is an exciting site because it has cross-community support and all parties in Northern Ireland would like to see the site developed. I share the enthusiasm for the development of the project and I look forward to reading the business case which will, I understand, be presented to the Executive very shortly.

Owen Paterson: There has been widespread speculation about the detail of the talks and the agreement leading up to the establishment of the new Executive. What was the deal and does it have any budget implications?

David Cameron: May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the two soldiers from the Parachute Regiment who were killed in Afghanistan yesterday? Our troops are doing an incredibly difficult job in tough circumstances and they have our full support.
	Let me ask some further questions, if I may, about Zimbabwe. I believe, as I believe that the Prime Minister does, that there is a real opportunity for Britain to take the initiative. There is universal anger at the stolen election, universal support for the leader of the opposition's pulling out of the race, condemnation from the UN Security Council and, for a change, strong words from Zimbabwe's neighbours.
	May I ask the Prime Minister about three specific actions? First, at the forthcoming G8, which President Mbeki will attend, will the Prime Minister push for a declaration that all states present will cease to prop up the regime and will refuse to recognise its legitimacy?

Gordon Brown: As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, we are bound by international laws in the question of the regime, but we do not recognise the legitimacy of the Zimbabwean Government. We do not believe that Mugabe has honoured the results of the previous election, or that the current elections can be free and fair. We want to see a peaceful transition as soon as possible.
	If we look back at the elections that did take place, it was clear that Mugabe lost them and that Tsvangirai was ahead. It is also clear that the Parliament in Zimbabwe has a majority against Mugabe. That is why what African leaders have said in the last few days is so important. For the first time, many of them have condemned both Mugabe's regime and his behaviour. We want to work for a peaceful transition. I believe that the statements made by the UN Secretary-General calling for an end to violence and offering his help to that end, as well as the strong statements from President Kikwete of Tanzania, are the best symbol of the way forward—that is, the UN and the African Union working together for a change of regime.

Gordon Brown: The right hon. Gentleman may also know that 160 individuals are under bans and sanctions as a result of decisions already taken. We are looking at extending the bans, as he suggested, to the families of the people involved. The bans will include financial sanctions, but also travel sanctions. We know the names of the individuals surrounding Mugabe, and we therefore know the names of the criminal cabal trying to keep him in power. We will name those individuals, and that will be part of the next stage of the sanctions.
	I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that businesses should also look at their involvement in Zimbabwe. We have taken a decision that we will force through sanctions against the individuals who are part of regime. We do not want to do further damage to the Zimbabwean people, but businesses that are helping the regime should of course reconsider their position.
	I believe that the whole world has woken up to the evils that have been going on in Zimbabwe, and that the whole international community, with a few exceptions, is now united in calling for action. What we want is an end to the violence, and a peaceful transition in Zimbabwe. That is why the efforts of the AU and the UN are so important. We will support them in their efforts and offer the Zimbabwean people help with reconstruction once democracy is restored.

Brian H Donohoe: On yesterday's "Today" programme, it was argued that speculators are responsible for the doubling of the oil price. The US Congress has been examining the situation, and is working very hard to limit the damage being done by speculators—who, by the way, control more than 71 per cent. of the futures market. However, the speculators are likely to move to London where, the Congress argues, the rules are more lax. What are the Government doing to protect the poor people who are having to pay the high prices at the petrol pumps?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is a huge issue, because oil prices have trebled over the past two years, and they have risen very substantially in the past few months. I was in Jeddah and met all the oil producers to talk about these matters.
	The first thing that we know is that the American Congress is looking at this matter. The Financial Services Authority is looking for any evidence of market manipulation and the Treasury is looking at what financial speculation may have taken place in the marketplace. If there is any evidence of that, we will act. We will also work with the rest of the European Union, which is examining the issue.
	I have to tell my hon. Friend that there is another issue here: demand for oil in the world exceeds the supply of oil, and it will for years to come. That is why we are making bold decisions for which I would hope we would have all-party support—first of all, to have energy independence through having nuclear power in this country. While we have made the decision, the Opposition have ducked it.

Nicholas Clegg: I would like to add my own expressions of sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of the two soldiers who tragically lost their lives in Afghanistan yesterday.
	Before the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister, I think that some people thought he was a man of principle. Over the past 12 months, time and time again, we have seen him abandon what he knows to be right for what he thinks is expedient. This afternoon, he has the chance to do the right thing when veterans from the Gurkhas march on No. 10 to hand in their medals in protest at the way in which they have been treated by this Government. I have asked him four times to receive those medals, and every time he has refused. Will he now have the grace to receive them today, or will he turn them away yet again?

David Cameron: The whole House will have heard the Prime Minister say that he has no plans to change trade union laws. This is the same man who, as Chancellor, said that he had no plans to introduce taxes, and then introduced extra taxes. If he genuinely has no plans to introduce new trade union laws, will he explain why he is going ahead with the Warwick Two process, in which the trade unions and Government Ministers will sit down and discuss policies, including the laws governing industrial action?

Gordon Brown: We have already set up the Border and Immigration Agency, which is 25,000 strong. My hon. Friend is referring to a proposal from the Association of Chief Police Officers, which the Government are happy to consider. The Home Secretary said that at the beginning of this week. The policing Green Paper to be published shortly will look at a number of proposals for policing at the border, including that from ACPO. It will also include other proposals that may not involve structural change. I believe that we must have the strongest possible protection at our borders, and we will provide that. Again, I hope that the Conservative party will reconsider its opposition to identity cards for people coming into this country, because that is one way in which we could protect against illegal immigration.

Alistair Darling: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the final report by Kieran Poynter, chairman of PricewaterhouseCoopers, into the loss of child benefit records at Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs last year. I should also tell the House that the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which conducted its own investigation of the loss, is publishing its report today. The IPCC found no evidence of misconduct or criminality by any member of staff at HMRC. The Cabinet Secretary has also published today his wider cross-Government work to improve data handling. Both the Poynter and IPCC reports are available in the Vote Office and will be placed in the Library of the House. I am grateful to Kieran Poynter and his team and to the IPCC for their extensive work. Both have provided a very full and detailed account of what happened.
	Improving information security is a challenge that every organisation is facing. In recent years, we have seen problems in both the public and private sectors as organisations struggle to keep pace with the development of technology in data storage and transfer. The public are entitled to expect Government Departments to ensure that their personal details are kept safe and it is therefore essential that we do everything we can to minimise the chances of this sort of loss happening again.
	I deliberately gave Mr Poynter wide-ranging terms of reference, not just because of the seriousness of this loss but because, as I said in my statement on 20 November, I was concerned about previous losses of data by HMRC. In my statements to the House on 20 November and 17 December last year, I set out the circumstances surrounding the events that led to the loss of the child benefit data and the immediate action taken. My priorities then were to locate the missing discs and to ensure that adequate safeguards were in place to monitor the bank and building society accounts of those who could have been affected.
	Despite extensive searches by Revenue and Customs and the police, the discs have not been found, but I can tell the House that I am advised that there is no evidence of any fraudulent activity as a result of the loss. Revenue and Customs took a series of immediate steps at that time, including a complete ban on the transfer of bulk data without adequate security protection, measures to prevent the downloading of data without the necessary safeguards and the immediate disabling of the ability to download data from all desktop and laptop computers within the organisation.
	Kieran Poynter's report is in two parts. The first part deals with the circumstances giving rise to the loss, and the second part deals with his wider findings and recommendations. He examined in detail the circumstances surrounding the earlier transfer of data in March 2007, to which I referred in my statements in the House. He found that in March, because the Revenue and Customs staff then involved were unaware of the relevant guidance, which in itself lacked clarity, they did not escalate the request to the appropriate level of seniority before releasing data to the National Audit Office. As a result, no senior Revenue and Customs official was asked to permit the NAO to take the data off-site to conduct its analysis, and no such official knew that this was envisaged.
	Mr. Poynter has concluded that these events in March last year created a precedent that allowed a similar transfer to take place in October without the appropriate level of authorisation or adequate consideration of the security risks of releasing such a large amount of personal information. He says that senior managers were unaware that the data had been moved from Revenue and Customs premises in March and October until the loss of data was subsequently reported to them. He concludes that the data loss incident arose following a sequence of communications failures between junior HMRC officials and between them and the National Audit Office. However, he finds that the loss was entirely avoidable and that the fact that it could have happened points to serious institutional deficiencies at Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. First, information security was not the management priority that it should have been. Secondly, management structures and governance were unnecessarily complex and did not establish clear lines of accountability. Moreover, he points to a lack of clarity in communications and the failure to involve senior HMRC staff as being contributing factors in both cases. Mr. Poynter makes it clear in his report that both those failings have now been addressed. He acknowledges the progress that the department has made since last November.
	Revenue and Customs is a complex organisation, operating from some 900 sites and sending out more than 300 million items of mail a year. Against this background, Mr. Poynter sets out the action that has been taken to make information security a priority. That includes the appointment of a chief risk officer; new, clearer security guidance; and a wide-ranging programme of training to raise awareness of security issues among staff. He also sets out the action that has been taken to simplify management structures and governance. He acknowledges the new organisational structure as a positive step forward.
	Mr. Poynter's team has worked closely with Revenue and Customs, particularly the teams that process large volumes of personal data or provide corporate services such as IT. By providing detailed recommendations to the organisation as its work progressed, rather than leaving them to the final report, the review team has been able to support Revenue and Customs and help it to make good progress in implementing its recommendations. However, Mr. Poynter states that
	"a great deal of work will be required to bring HMRC up to and to sustain the world class standard for information security to which it now properly aspires."
	In all, he makes 45 recommendations, all of which have been accepted. Revenue and Customs has made good progress on 39 of the recommendations, including 13 that have been fully implemented, and work is continuing on the remaining recommendations.
	Mr. Poynter also makes a number of recommendations in relation to the way in which Revenue and Customs operates and the fragmentation and complexity of its IT systems. The organisation is already addressing these issues and will spend £155 million on improving data security over the next three years. The 45 recommendations, when fully implemented, will reduce the risk of a serious breach in the future and ensure that HMRC achieves the highest standards of information security.
	Kieran Poynter states that the decision to merge the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise was the right one, but he says that the management structure subsequently adopted was not suitable—exactly the same failing as was identified in the capability review carried out by an independent panel overseen by the Cabinet Secretary and published last December. In acknowledging the significant changes that the organisation has undergone, Mr. Poynter judges that
	"these changes individually and collectively represent good decisions which have created the platform from which to build a high quality, efficient administration."
	In order to build from that platform, the management need to continue to address the issues highlighted by Mr. Poynter in his wider review and the capability review. In particular, Revenue and Customs' security procedures must be improved to ensure that information security is a management priority and, importantly, management must raise staff morale. Mr. Poynter acknowledges the new organisational structure put in place earlier this year as a crucial step and makes recommendations to develop it further. He concludes that his findings represent an opportunity to modernise work practices and systems, which will make the organisation more efficient, as well as rebuild its reputation for data security.
	I am grateful to Dave Hartnett, the acting chairman who has overseen these improvements and has led the organisation through a difficult time. Yesterday, Mike Clasper, who has considerable business experience, was appointed as chairman of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, and he and Dave Hartnett have made it clear that the implementation of the Poynter recommendations and, crucially, the importance of information security will be priorities. The Information Commissioner, who has been kept informed since the outset, has indicated that this review has investigated all the facts and issues with which he needs to be concerned, and he fully supports all of Kieran Poynter's recommendations. The Information Commissioner proposes to serve the appropriate enforcement notice on Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs under the Data Protection Act 1998.
	It is quite clear that the loss was entirely avoidable, and again, I apologise unreservedly to everyone who has been affected. HMRC employs tens of thousands of people who work hard and who are dedicated to providing an excellent service to the public. The staff are entitled to expect clarity as to how they discharge their duties. The public are entitled to expect that their privacy is respected and that the security of highly personal information is the highest priority. It is essential that we now implement these recommendations, and I commend this statement to the House.

George Osborne: Let us remember that the first duty of any Government is to protect the security of its citizens, and that this Government breached that duty when they lost the names and addresses of every child in the country and the bank account details of 10 million parents. We thank Kieran Poynter and the Independent Police Complaints Commission for their work—they certainly do not pull any punches. They offer a truly devastating account of incompetence and systemic failure at the heart of this Government, which is a guide in how not to govern this country.
	So the first question we ask today is: who is responsible? Last November, the Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the fault lay with what he called "a junior official" who acted
	"contrary to all HMRC standing procedures".—[ Official Report, 20 November 2007; Vol. 467, c. 1101.]
	The Prime Minister repeated the charge, and his spokesman said that
	"this was about an individual breach in procedures, not about failure in the procedures as such".
	How can those statements, one of which was to the House of Commons, possibly be reconciled with today's reports? Page 7 of the Poynter report says that the review team
	"has not encountered any evidence of...knowing disregard for policy or procedure in any of the circumstances leading to this loss."
	As the Chancellor has just conceded, the IPCC says that there is
	"no evidence whatsoever of misconduct by any member of HMRC".
	Both reports clearly say that the data loss was symptomatic of a wider problem and list a catalogue of systemic failures. Has not the ignoble attempt by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to pile the blame for their administrative failures on a single junior official at HMRC been comprehensively blown out of the water today?
	The second question I have for the Chancellor is: who allowed one of the largest Departments in Government to develop a culture, which, to quote from the reports—I could give many more quotes, but I shall give these—in which morale is "low", communication is poor, staff are denied
	"adequate support, training or guidance",
	there is
	"no visible management of date security at any level",
	the management structure adopted is not suitable, there are serious questions of governance and accountability and the whole department displays a "muddle through ethos"?
	Who is actually responsible for this? This is not some obscure Government agency on the fringes of Whitehall; it is one of the largest Departments of Government that holds the personal data and intimate financial details of every single citizen in the country. The Chancellor himself admits that the Department he runs has serious institutional deficiencies. So can he tell us—do not worry, no one's listening—who he thinks is responsible? Could it possibly be the person, who for 10 years—longer than anyone else in modern history—ran this Department? Could it be the person who is now the Prime Minister, who created this new Department and did not put in place adequate management structures, as identified in the report? Will the Chancellor firmly place the blame on the Minister responsible—the man who is now the Prime Minister?
	Thirdly and finally, how can we have any confidence that there will be no repeat of this breach of security? The Chancellor talks about the 39 recommendations that are being implemented in his Department, and he says that he accepts them all. Could he tell us about the six that are not currently being implemented, but were recommended in the report, and which he says will be implemented, so we can hold him to account? Does he remember the Prime Minister promising at the time of the data loss seven months ago that every Department and agency would follow proper procedure from then on in protecting personal data? Will he confirm that, since the Prime Minister made that promise, 12 major breaches of security have occurred across Whitehall, 3 million driving licence details were lost in December, 168,000 confidential NHS records on children were lost at Christmas, a laptop containing the names and passport numbers of 600,000 military recruits was stolen from the boot of a car in January, secret papers on terrorism were left on a train not once, but twice—all capped this month by the revelation that a Cabinet Minister had broken Cabinet rules and left her laptop, which contained sensitive files and should never have been taken out of Whitehall, in a constituency office?
	If we add it all up, we find that the Government have lost 37 million items of personal data in the past year alone. With such a record, how can they even consider proceeding with plans for a compulsory ID card for every citizen of the country? Will the Chancellor at least live up to his previous view on ID cards and confirm that they have been abandoned today?
	After a year in office—it is the Chancellor's anniversary, too—briefed against by Downing street, tipped for the sack by his colleagues, the Chancellor's only achievement is to be regarded as more incompetent than the man planning to sack him. Last autumn, he blamed a junior official for his fate. Today, the review that he establishes blames the culture of the Department that he runs and that the Prime Minister created. Does not that give us a damning insight into the Government's culture? They are cavalier with their citizens' privacy, casual with the public's security and wholly incompetent in handling even the basic functions of the state.

John McFall: I welcome the Poynter statement, which confirms the earlier, tentative conclusions that the Select Committee on Treasury reached, which are that what happened was entirely avoidable and that communication between junior HMRC staff and senior managers was non-existent. Can the Chancellor assure us that HMRC is not a dysfunctional Department, as was suggested in some earlier Committee hearings? Indeed, that is an issue that we will take up with the new chief executive, Mike Clasper, whose appointment I welcome. Can the Chancellor also put the public's mind at rest by confirming that information security will now be a priority not only for HMRC, but across all Departments?

Alistair Darling: On that point, no one who is responsible for running any organisation, whether Revenue and Customs or any other organisation that holds highly sensitive information, should be in any doubt that individual security must be their No. 1 priority. I am glad that my right hon. Friend welcomes the appointment of Mike Clasper, who has considerable business experience. He is determined to ensure under his chairmanship the security of people's personal information. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) was quite right: every one of us deals with HMRC at some stage of our lives, if not throughout our lives. It is essential that people understand that the information that they handle is highly personal and highly sensitive, and must be treated with the care that that entails.
	I want to ensure, as I know Mike Clasper and Dave Hartnett, the acting chairman of HMRC, do, that the culture changes and, crucially, that the changes that they have made in management, so that it is now clear who is accountable for each line of business, mean that we can reduce the risks that were endemic in the management culture that was put in place after the merger of the two institutions, but which was patently not suitable for the tasks that it had to face.

Vincent Cable: To date, the semantics of incompetence have been reasonably clear. We have had "systemic failure", which is the responsibility of Ministers, and "procedural failure", which is the failure of individual officials. We now have something new called "cultural failure", which is an all-pervasive management mess for which everybody is to blame, but no individual is responsible. Can the Chancellor therefore go back to the question that the Conservative spokesman fairly asked him at the outset: which individuals now carry responsibility, beyond Mr. Gray, who left voluntarily with a golden goodbye?
	Is not the Conservative spokesman right that the responsibility indeed lies with the current Prime Minister, albeit for one specific decision that he made? That was the decision to remove 24,000 staff at the Inland Revenue, the consequence of which is that it is now hopelessly ill equipped to handle the growing complexity of the tax system and tax credits. There has been a breakdown in face-to-face relationships, particularly with small businesses, and the institution is hopelessly understaffed to cope with the complexities of tax avoidance and evasion, which are happening on a large scale in the City and among the rich of this country.
	Specifically on data security, what lessons have been learned, when we discover from the Information Commissioner that there have been no fewer than 100 breaches of data security since last November? Is it not the case that there is a growing diversity of data breach, involving not merely CDs, but memory sticks, laptops and paper files, and a growing variety of places where these things are lost, including on trains, in backs of cars and in bars? As has already been said, the issue is the integrity not simply of the ID system, but of any centralised Government database of the kind that has been accumulated, for example, under the NHS scheme.
	What lessons have been learned about basic management efficiencies last November, when the Select Committee on Public Accounts published a report only a month ago saying that the Inland Revenue had lost £2.8 billion of revenue as a result of false reporting by taxpayers, which it is unwilling or unable to follow up? What lessons have been learned about the Inland Revenue's IT system, when only a few weeks ago the Economic Secretary to the Treasury had to report a programme failure, such that 100,000 poor people were not receiving their payments under the trust scheme?
	My final point is this. There are very few private sector companies that are as managerially inefficient as HMRC, but there are some. One of them is BAA, a private monopoly whose reputation for consumer service is legendary in the worst possible way. Is there not an irony in the fact that the failed chief executive of that appalling company is now being appointed as the chairman of HMRC?

Andrew Miller: Will my right hon. Friend expand a little on what he said about training? There is a cultural problem in many large organisations in both the public and private sectors, whereby people's understanding of the nature, scale and importance of data today has become weak, as my he said. As I understand it, all 90,000 HMRC employees are to undergo a training programme. Will that be a rolling programme, and will the fact that members of staff have undertaken that training be transparent among them, so that there can be an incentive inside the organisation? If he can demonstrate best practice, will he ensure that it is shared across Departments, so that we can extend the work arising from Poynter's recommendations to all Departments in this vital area?

Hywel Williams: Clearly, centralisation of data processing and storage means that any loss, howsoever caused, is potentially catastrophic. Should not anyone concerned about data security react with dismay at HMRC's current proposals to further centralise the service with the closure of local offices?

Gordon Prentice: Poynter recommends the appointment of a chief risk officer. How many risk officers are there in HMRC and is it not the case that there are data protection officers in every civil service department? If that is the case, were they not asleep in their job? As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) asked, who is actually carrying the can? Has anyone been reprimanded, let alone disciplined?

Alistair Darling: On the last point, my hon. Friend will know that the then chairman of HMRC resigned last November. On chief risk officers, the point is that someone very senior in the organisation needs to be responsible for making sure that risks are addressed. As to the exact number of people responsible, I shall write to my hon. Friend as I do not want to give him a wrong figure. He is basically making the same point as everyone else: in every organisation, people need to be acutely aware of the sensitivity of the information handled and to ensure that it is handled properly and that the safeguards are as strong as they possibly can be.

Peter Bottomley: May I say to the Chancellor that he should speak for himself rather than delegate? Will he tell us how many people have been chairmen or acting chairmen of HMRC during its existence? I put it to him that, despite all the problems highlighted by my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, there are hundreds of thousands of people in the civil service who are well trained and well led, and who carry out their job with great dedication. For all the attention that we are rightly giving today to the problems illustrated by the report, their work should be honoured, and many of us think that senior executive officers and higher executive officers are rather senior positions.

Philip Hollobone: My constituents were appalled at the loss of their personal information by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, and disappointed that no Treasury Minister had accepted personal responsibility by resigning. Given that many other Departments hold extensive personal information .on millions of individuals, can the Chancellor give my constituents a clear indication of what practical steps he will take, together with the Cabinet Office, to ensure that such catastrophic data loss does not happen again in future?

Peter Ainsworth: May I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and congratulate Sir Michael Pitt and his team on producing a very thorough and comprehensive report? One year on from the disastrous floods of last June, the thoughts of the whole House will be with those who tragically lost members of their families, and with those whose homes and businesses were wrecked and whose lives were indeed turned upside down.
	Anyone who has met the victims of flooding knows only too well that, as well as the physical damage to property and the disruption to daily life, there is often a lasting, less visible but none the less real, emotional impact to cope with. It is essential that everything possible is done to protect communities against the risk of flooding, and to ensure that when flooding occurs, the response is swift and efficient. I pay tribute again to the work of the emergency services last year, who in often hazardous circumstances did an extraordinary job with great determination. Those circumstances were often made even more difficult by other factors; we know from the chief fire officer that he felt that there was "institutional chaos", which affected the emergency services' work. We must learn the lessons from that.
	Although Sir Michael's interim report published last December recognised that the weather events last year were exceptional, it found that the United Kingdom's response was ill prepared. At that time, he made 15 urgent recommendations, and the Government rightly said they would act on them. However, in a progress report published in April, Sir Michael was critical, saying that insufficient action had been taken on key infrastructure and raising public awareness. He said:
	"The public remain little better prepared than they were before last summer's floods."
	What confidence can we have in the Government's promise to act on today's recommendations when previous urgent recommendations have been largely ignored?
	Sir Michael's interim report said that the floods were a "wake-up call", but after a bit of progress has been made on some of the recommendations somebody seems to have hit the snooze button. It is one year on from the floods, but three years since the Government first announced plans to give the Environment Agency a strategic overview of all types of flooding. Last week, the Government re-announced plans to extend the role of the EA as part of the proposed floods and water Bill, but there is no intention to do anything but consult on possible legislation, and then not until 2009. Is that the rapid implementation that is needed, or is it dithering?
	Last summer, the Prime Minister said, "We will do all we can to help people living in temporary accommodation after the floods." What does he say now to the 11,000 people who are still out of their homes?
	The Government also promised that local authorities affected by the floods would be compensated for the cost of clearing up. We have spoken to local authorities and they have told us that they are collectively some £50 million out of pocket, because the money that they were promised has not been delivered. Does the Secretary of State expect the council tax payer to pick up the bill?
	We welcome the report's recommendation that there should be a presumption against building in high flood risk areas, but what are the Government doing to ensure that that is implemented? The report is correct to recommend that there should be an end to the automatic right of water and sewerage companies to connect new properties to the drainage system regardless of capacity, but where is the Government's policy to deal with that and ensure that it happens?
	On critical infrastructure, the report says that
	"the approach taken by the Government to mitigating the risks from flooding and other natural hazards has been uncoordinated and reactive."
	It calls for the urgent publication of a national framework to reduce risks to our infrastructure. That was one of the "urgent recommendations" made last December. Is it not the case that vital infrastructure is as vulnerable today as it was a year ago? When can we expect a national framework to be implemented?
	The Secretary of State says that flood warnings save lives, and another of last year's urgent recommendations was to introduce an opt-out telephone warning system. In April, Sir Michael warned that "insufficient progress" had been made on this. Today he says that the issue is "not yet resolved". When will it be resolved?
	Sir Michael says of his 92 recommendations that
	"strong national leadership will be needed to make them a reality."
	I suspect that what he really means by that is that more dithering simply will not do. Is not that the single most important lesson to be learned? What people are asking is when we will get strong national leadership from this Government. I fear that they know the answer.

Hilary Benn: I echo the hon. Gentleman's praise for the clarity of Sir Michael's report and the practical way in which he went about his task. Today, Sir Michael has presented us and the nation with a guide to why we need to do better in the future, and how we can do so. Today's discussion is part of the process of making more people aware of the steps that they need to take—an awareness that will grow as a result of the coverage that I hope his report will receive today.
	Why are 4,716 households still out of their homes? Principally, the answer is that their homes are still drying out. If anyone has any ideas about how that can be done more quickly, I am sure that insurance companies and those householders will be keen to hear them. Some people might be out of their homes because they have insurance problems—we think that about one in eight of those households did not have any insurance at all—and one lesson that we need to learn is that people cannot afford not to take out insurance.
	Why have I set out such a timetable for the legislation? First, we believe in pre-legislative scrutiny. Secondly, Sir Michael's report has been published only today and we need to think through the consequences of his detailed recommendations, which we have just seen, so that we can update the legislation, some of which goes back to the 1930s. We will have a floods exercise, but it will not be immediate, for the simple reason that we have had quite a lot of flood exercises in the past year: they have been real floods. The purpose of the exercise will be to test the national flood emergency framework, when it is in place, to see whether we have dealt with all the issues that have been identified. On the budget, it is rising from £650 million this year up to £700 million and then £800 million. The Environment Agency will say that it needs time to plan, to gear up and to prepare the new flood schemes. We will, of course, need to do more about such schemes in future.
	The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about housing, but as Sir Michael says in his report, the planning guidance is very clear. The responsibility is on the local authorities and we have made clear what their responsibilities are— [ Interruption. ] It is. In the end, the local councils that give permission for building or refuse it will bear the responsibility. However, the Environment Agency has been given a statutory right to be consulted because, after all, it is the expert on flood risk.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. One clear lesson from what we have all experienced is that we need to look at how all the bits of the river system fit together so that we can understand where the water will flow if there is flooding. The same issue arises in relation to surface water flooding. The purpose of giving the Environment Agency that overview is precisely so that all the bits can be joined up. As it plans its work on further flood defences, it can then take account of what it has identified to ensure that those defences are put in the right place. This is work in progress, and the purpose of the report and of learning the lessons from it is that that we can do a better job in the future.

Crispin Blunt: First, I must declare an interest, in that my constituency home is next to a river and is therefore a flood risk. The Secretary of State has talked about the importance of insurance, but when I purchased the house in 2005, I at least had the benefit of knowing that there is an understanding in the insurance industry that companies will continue to underwrite their existing flood risk policies. I wanted to the previous owner's insurance policy transferred to me, which meant that I had to go to a higher level of the company involved. Insurance is essential for everyone who owns a home in a flood-risk area, as a mortgage cannot be secured without that protection for the home's capital value.
	I have not had a chance to read the report, so what does Sir Michael say about insurance? More importantly, what is the Secretary of State's view? I enormously welcome the approach adopted by the insurance companies, but it is very important that the understanding to which I referred earlier remains in place. If it does not, millions of people risk incurring an enormous loss in the capital value of their principal asset.

Janet Anderson: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a mandatory code of practice on safety of vehicle loads; and for connected purposes.
	On 1 November 2006, Valerie Taylor, a 63-year-old retired lecturer from my constituency, tragically lost her life in a road traffic accident that could have been entirely avoided. While she was driving from Rossendale to Liverpool to take her partner to hospital, an articulated lorry carrying nearly 40 tonnes of scrap metal overturned on a public highway at the Rocket Island roundabout and landed on Valerie's car. The first police officer on the scene, Sergeant Frank Rennison, described the scene as "utter carnage". Valerie Taylor died instantly as a result of the vehicle crushing her car.
	One of the main reasons why the lorry overturned, killing Valerie, was the irresponsible way in which scrap metal had been loaded on to the vehicle. There is a code of practice on the safety of loads on vehicles, but it is not mandatory so it is often ignored. If legislation regarding the loading, carrying and transport of scrap metal was tighter, the irresponsible loading of lorries might stop, and tragic accidents such as that which took the life of Valerie Taylor could be prevented.
	The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), who is now on the Government Front Bench, said in recent written answer:
	"While the Code is not a legal document and there are no plans to make it mandatory, it can be used as an example of good practice to support a prosecution for non compliance with regulations."—[ Official Report, 26 February 2008; Vol. 472, c. 1351W.]
	If tragic accidents such as that which claimed the life of Valerie Taylor are to be avoided in the future, surely it is essential that we have a mandatory code of practice on the safety of loads on vehicles. The Bill would put such a code in place to regulate and change the way in which scrap metal and other items are loaded on to wagons and carried on our public highways.
	The order in which materials are loaded on to heavy goods vehicles is particularly important for the safety of the loads. I understand that Department for Transport guidelines state that scrap metal cars and comparably large objects should be loaded at the bottom of the container, with smaller bales on top of them. Those guidelines are often ignored. For instance, in the accident that took the life of Valerie Taylor, the load of the heavy goods vehicle that overturned was top-heavy. The lorry was carrying a total load of almost 40 tonnes. As part of that load, nearly 13 tonnes of scrap cars were loaded on top of 8.4 tonnes of compacted scrap metal bales.
	When European Metal Recycling Ltd, the company that owned the scrap metal, gave evidence in the court hearing following the accident, it admitted that three lorries had overturned in three months. It claimed that it had now changed its policy on the loading of scrap metal, but we still see lorries on our motorways today with crushed cars at the top of their loads. It is claimed that the cars are used as a cover to stop metal from flying off, but that must render the loads top-heavy and unstable. The facts speak for themselves.
	The Bill would make it mandatory to load heavier materials at the bottom of a container and lighter materials at the top. It would render the top-heavy loading of heavy goods vehicles illegal, which should prevent such tragic accidents. Almost all of us drive, and the thought that there are no mandatory regulations covering such things should concern us all. The legislative steps proposed in the Bill are necessary to create a much safer environment for all road users. Sadly, we cannot bring Valerie Taylor back to life. However, it would be a fitting tribute to her memory if we were to take this important step to try to ensure that similar tragedies do not, and cannot, occur in the future.
	I pay tribute to my late hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich who, as Chair of the Transport Committee, took a keen interest in this issue and took the trouble to discuss it with my constituents. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), in whose constituency the accident occurred, who is now Chair of that Select Committee. My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope), has also been very supportive.
	Valerie Taylor's niece Pamela Woods and Valerie's friend Pat Hoare have been relentless in their efforts to highlight this problem, so much so that they have persuaded the traffic commissioner in the north-west to conduct an investigation in her role that gives her statutory responsibility for the regulation of commercial goods and passenger vehicles. We await the outcome of her investigation with interest. I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Janet Anderson, Norman Baker, Mr. John Heppell, Mr. Greg Pope, Jim Dowd, Kali Mountford, Andrew Miller, Mr. George Howarth, Ian Stewart and Mrs. Louise Ellman.

Elfyn Llwyd: Having spent several days discussing these important issues in Committee, I am also disappointed that we have come to this point. I say that more in sorrow than in anger. I do not normally take part in debates about programming, because they can sometimes end up producing a load of synthetic anger. I remember the 1992 Parliament, when Labour Members were on this side of the House. Some of them were close to tears whenever anything was timetabled, on the rare occasions when that happened. I heard many impassioned, emotional speeches about the abuse of Parliament at that time. However, it is now routine for Parliament to be abused in that way, and that calls into question the way in which we make laws.
	I was encouraged to hear Ministers saying, "We will take this away for consideration", because I thought that it might indicate some movement on important matters. But no, it was to buy off some rebels, as the Government saw them. Whatever the amendments are, we will not have time to go through them in detail today, but let us hope that we can at least touch on them. I have no doubt that they are fundamentally important.
	This is one of the most important Bills in this Session. Planning impinges on all of us. Everyone gets exercised about planning in their locality, but the Bill will apparently take the local voice out of the system and ensure that an unelected, unaccountable quango will make the decisions instead—albeit, following the latest review, with a Government Minister riding alongside on his horse.
	I am desperately unhappy about the Bill. Some of us who have been here for a while have seen changes to planning law, and I accept that changes are necessary because planning law evolves. If it did not evolve, we would be failing the people out there. However, to impose this kind of regime after such a truncated debate, and to expect us to sit by and allow the law to go through with such scant scrutiny, is an absolute disgrace. I shall certainly join the official Opposition and others in opposing the programme motion.

John Healey: The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) made many of the same points this afternoon that she made three weeks ago, when we debated the programme motion for the first day on Report, as did the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). They complained about the time for debate, but their complaints have eaten into the time available for that debate.
	Those hon. Members also complained about the delay on Report, but at the same time they want Ministers to deal with hon. Members' concerns. From the outset—the White Paper onwards—we have done just that. We have listened hard at every stage to the case made by hon. Members from all parties on the Bill. We have also discussed in detail concerns expressed by local government, industry and environmental lobby groups. Where there is a strong case for change, we have been prepared to strengthen the Bill accordingly, which is what we are doing again today.
	We scheduled the second day on Report for today rather than for two weeks ago, because I wanted the important issues that we are debating this afternoon to be dealt with in this House, not in the other place, and to be decided by MPs, not peers. My reasons for framing and moving the programme motion are straightforward. I want to make sure that the House has the most time on the matters that concern hon. Members most, which is why the time available for the important first group of amendments runs until 5 o'clock, which has become even more important given the two important statements this afternoon.

Hazel Blears: I am very conscious of the amount of time that we have to debate the range of amendments to which you refer, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to concentrate largely on the areas that Members are most exercised about. Members are concerned about three main issues: first, the principle of independent decision making, which, as they have said, goes right to the heart of the Bill; secondly, what happens at the examination stage and the public's right to be heard, not only at that stage but under the rest of the Bill—public consultation and the right to be heard is absolutely central—and thirdly, the impact on the local community of decisions on major national significant infrastructure projects, which is the aspect that Members have expressed most concern to me about. We should make those three areas the principal focus of our debate, and I intend to do that.
	The amendments fall broadly into nine blocks. If Members will bear with me, I propose to deal briefly with the Government amendments, which fall into blocks 1, 2 and 3. The issues at the heart of the Bill are dealt with in blocks 4, 5 and 6, and then we have some Opposition amendments towards the end. If I refer to minor issues, I do not mean to denigrate them, but they may not be at the centre of people's concerns.
	The Government amendments deal broadly with changes to procedure relating to ministerial intervention. Contrary to some of the views that have been expressed, there is provision for ministerial intervention in certain narrowly defined circumstances, one of which relates to national security and defence. A series of Government amendments seek to prescribe a procedure where intervention takes place on the basis of national security or defence issues. They relate primarily to being able to take evidence in a particular way because it might involve sensitive matters, in order to ensure that if there are hearings in private the interests of people who might be affected are protected by special procedures. In many ways, the procedures mirror those that we have in criminal law and civil law where issues of national security are touched on and there is a need to protect the sensitivity of the information.
	That is the broad thrust of that group of amendments, and I hope that they are agreed to. There are provisions for the Attorney-General to appoint people to protect interests—that sort of thing—and they are in the interests of good government.

Denis Murphy: Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that open-cast coal operators will not be allowed to circumvent the current planning system by referring new applications directly to the new planning commission, citing the national interest?

Frank Field: My right hon. Friend is well aware that between the Birkenhead and Wallasey constituencies, Peel Holdings wishes to create over time what is, in effect, a new town. Can she give me an undertaking that that terrific development, which has huge significance for Merseyside, but may not rate as a national event, will be covered by the current planning procedures and not the new ones?

Hazel Blears: I am delighted to give my right hon. Friend that assurance. I have visited the area, and I have gained a little understanding of the vision for the community; it is a very exciting vision. That project would not fall under clause 13, which deals with energy, wind, water and waste water—that sort of big infrastructure project. The sort of project he mentioned would be dealt with by the existing system, and I am delighted to give him that reassurance.

Paul Beresford: Clause 13 refers to
	"the construction of a pipe-line".
	If the Secretary of State could talk about that a tiny bit, I would be grateful. Some long and important pipelines have gone through my constituency quite easily, but a very short gas pipeline that is about to be dealt with under the procedures goes through several beautiful areas in my constituency. It is a tiny matter in many ways, but it is emotionally important. Would that matter be taken away from the local authority?

Susan Kramer: The Secretary of State is being phenomenally generous, and it is much appreciated.
	As the details of the Bill have emerged, a large number of my constituents have become concerned that it is not only the expansion of runways at Heathrow that will be covered by the new procedure, but changes to the pattern of operations and the ending of runway alternation. Can the right hon. Lady give us some clarification on that issue, because it is causing a great deal of disquiet?

Hazel Blears: As I said to the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), the purpose of the Bill is to ensure a single consent regime for major infrastructure projects. We will come to other powers of the independent planning commission when we discuss some of the amendments. We want to ensure that in the field of aviation, for example, there is a clear exposition of national policy in the national policy statement. Individual applications will then be dealt with by the independent planning commission. Clearly, it is a matter of assessing the national need and then looking at the detail of individual applications. If the hon. Lady has concerns on a specific issue, I shall write to her with further details, and I am more than happy to do so.
	The second block of amendments, which I shall mention quickly, deal with where we trigger development, and ensure that the lines concerning such triggering are appropriate. Again, I hope that the amendments will have the support of the House. There is a third block of amendments dealing with cases in which there might be different terms of consent granted to the original application. Members have expressed the concern that, if in the process of considering an application, some detail turns out to be slightly different from what was originally intended, there should be a notification procedure to ensure that people are aware of it. That is entirely proper because the whole point of the process is that there is a dialogue. There should be interaction, and the ability to dig into issues to get the right result. It is absolutely appropriate that people should be notified, and again, I hope that the amendments find favour. Hopefully, those non-controversial amendments will lead us to discussions on amendments that will not find universal consensus.
	Further amendments have been submitted by various Opposition Members. There are amendments on whether the independent planning commission should take into account specific issues when making its decisions. There are a series of such amendments, including amendments Nos. 69, 71, 292 and 328. They would ensure that the IPC considered a list of criteria, including mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, limiting the negative impact of a development, widening the framework, looking at all relevant planning policy statements, the views of statutory environment agencies and material considerations. Those amendments would, in many ways, replicate the current considerations of the current town and country planning system, when the purpose of the Bill is to set up a new system of examining major national infrastructure projects. We are not seeking to replicate the existing system. This is a bold attempt to get a planning system that is fit for the 21st century, which can deal with major applications.
	I say to those who tabled that block of amendments that the framework in which the infrastructure planning commission operates should be set at the national policy statement stage. That is fundamental. To add consideration after consideration—a list of criteria—would constrain the IPC. The framework in which it operates should properly be the subject of a national policy statement. I do not dismiss the amendments, but they are unnecessary.
	Some amendments would make specific bodies, such as the Environment Agency, statutory consultees. The Bill provides for a range of bodies to be statutory consultees—I have no doubt that the Environment Agency will be one, but it is invidious to try to highlight only one body through an amendment. I do not believe that that would help the formulation of the proposed legislation. I am not being rude to those who tabled the amendments—I understand the point that they are trying to pursue—but I hope that I can reassure them that those planning policy considerations will be at the heart of the IPC's framework.
	The next block of amendments in the group almost proposes the necessity for a third party when consultation takes place about various proposals. It includes new clause 7 and amendments Nos. 55, 317 to 322, 326 and 65. They try to provide for mediation of and comment on consultation by a third party to assess whether it has been adequate. Again, I am worried about the proposals because the point of the consultation is that the people engaged in the debate should be responsible for it. For example, the Bill provides for a new right for people to be consulted before a proposal is made. The promoter of the proposal is responsible for ensuring that that consultation is carried out. The local authority has to determine whether it was effective, but to insert provision for a third party to mediate would get us to the point at which local people felt that they had not had a proper say because their views were being translated at second or possibly third hand. I am therefore not attracted to the amendments and ask hon. Members not to support them. They are impractical, unnecessary and inappropriate.
	I am more amenable to the proposal for carrying out a diligent inquiry to assess who might be in a position to claim compensation. I am slightly more attracted to that proposal because it is important for promoters to know the range of people who might find themselves in that position. It would give promoters more certainty. I do not want to place an unreasonable burden on promoters, but I am attracted to ascertaining whether we can find a reasonable formulation of the responsibility so that there is more certainty about those who might be affected.

Hazel Blears: I want to press on. When I come to the heart of the matter, I am sure that the hon. Lady will have every opportunity to make her points.
	I am not inclined to accept the amendments that would insert a third party into the consultation because I do not believe that that it is right. However, I said that I would further consider whether there was a reasonable way in which to place a duty on promoters to implement a due diligence requirement.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe has tabled new clause 39, which would retain a statutory offence against nuisance if an application goes through. I understand that that already applies for railway premises and rail network organisations. The new clause is fairly technical but nevertheless extremely useful. I read it earlier today and I believe that replicating the defence of statutory authority against nuisance claims would be useful, as the current procedures work well. Again, my hon. Friend has been constructive and practical. When I saw the title of the new clause, which deals with statutory nuisance, he did not come to mind, because he has been anything but a nuisance during the process. I am delighted to be able to support new clause 39, which helps to retain the defence against statutory nuisance in our system.
	Let me turn to the large number of amendments that broadly seek to make the independent planning commission a recommending body, with decisions taken by the Secretary of State rather than an independent decision-making body, and to the other set of amendments, which would require that the Secretary of State confirm the decisions of the IPC. In many ways, those are two different formulations of the same thing. Indeed, I have been struggling to think how those two propositions are markedly different.
	Amendment No. 5 would amend clause 1 to make the purpose of the independent planning commission advisory only. Amendments Nos. 6 to 51 and 60 to 64 go right the way through the Bill, either amending the relevant clauses so that the role of the IPC is to advise the Secretary of State in determining applications or replacing the IPC with the Secretary of State in those clauses that confer or refer to decision-making powers. The purpose of those amendments is to change the fundamental principle throughout the Bill that the IPC is the independent decision-making body.
	The second set of amendments, which are amendments Nos. 68 and 339, seek to ensure that the decisions of the IPC are subject to confirmation and provide a period of up to six months in which the Secretary of State has the right to make that decision.
	Let me deal with those two blocks of amendments before turning to the third block, which is slightly different and provides that if the panel or the council proposes to make an order that would modify or exclude legislation, which is an important issue, that order would be subject to special parliamentary procedures. In effect, those procedures would mean that the decision would return to the Secretary of State, subject to approval by Parliament, rather than being taken by the IPC. All those areas are interrelated and interconnected, and I propose to deal with them in that way.
	Let me start with the amendments that seek to turn the IPC into a recommending body. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government explained when he gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee—it seems a long time ago now—we see three main benefits to setting up an independent body to consider nationally significant infrastructure projects and giving it the power to make the decisions. The first of those benefits is speed and efficiency, to which the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) has referred. We think that our proposal will mean that decisions are made more quickly.
	Currently, decisions are made and examined by the Planning Inspectorate, and are often subject to inquiry and then decided on by Ministers.  [ Interruption. ] Excuse me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am talking rather too quickly and rather too loud, so I will just take a breath. The current position means that, sequentially, there are basically two processes, with two separate bodies going over the same ground. With some decisions, the proposals can involve more than one Minister, from more than one Department. That adds complexity and potential delay.
	Every hon. Member who has spoken, including Opposition Members, has acknowledged that our current system takes too long, is immensely costly and is in many cases almost impenetrable to members of the public. There is a lack of transparency and clarity, and there is a recognition throughout the House that things have to change. As the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said earlier, the system is not working, and therefore needs to be brought up to date and made fit for the modern world in which we live. The proposals that we have brought forward will help us to do just that.
	It is also the case that we can improve speed and efficiency without sacrificing democracy and local involvement, and I am sure that this debate will explore those issues. However, it is unacceptable that, for example, the upgrade to the North Yorkshire power grid took just over six years and that, on average, wind farm applications take more than two years. In fact, wind farm applications totalling more than 1,400 MW are stuck in the system. Some 500 MW of that capacity would fall to the independent planning commission and would, I understand, be enough to power 1 million homes. All those applications are clogged up and snarled up in a fairly antiquated system that cannot process them.
	I am genuinely concerned that the decisions that need to be taken in the long-term interests not just of the economy but of the environment will continually be frustrated unless we make some fairly bold and radical changes to our existing planning system.

Daniel Rogerson: I am interested in the Secretary of State's terminology in respect of processing applications. I am concerned that it tends to imply that we want things decided without communities having the chance to oppose them effectively, that the Government see such projects as things that must happen and that the IPC will therefore be given a fairly firm steer that it needs to get through quickly. I am talking not so much about what she said about a deliberative process; rather, the important thing is not just that decisions are taken quickly and that the process is effective, which I accept, but that they are right.

Hazel Blears: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman and I are in agreement about that. Speed and efficiency are important, but they are not the only considerations. Decisions must be properly explored; they need to be effective and to command support because they have been subjected to testing and a proper rigorous examination. I entirely agree, but there is no getting away from the fact that over the next 10 or 20 years, we are going to have to renew a third of our energy-generating capacity in this country and we will need a diverse energy policy that seeks to get the benefits from more than just gas, where we are now becoming a net importer rather than exporter. The people of this country do not want to have to rely simply on importing gas from a range of other countries, which would then be in a very powerful position over us. That is why they want a diverse energy policy. The people of this country also recognise that in terms of aviation, any decisions are controversial, but they also recognise that we need aviation and that we need the employment that goes with the development of our airport capacity. These are big and difficult decisions, but there is no shying away from them.
	I have to say that what sometimes worries me is that people are prepared to will the ends—we all say we want better decisions, more flexibility, speed and efficiency—but they are not prepared to will the means to get there. That requires being prepared to take some tough decisions in the interests of our country's long-term prosperity. That is the real political test for the Opposition parties, and at the moment, they are in danger of failing it.

Nick Raynsford: In replying to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), my right hon. Friend rightly identified the importance of a democratic response. Will she will also recognise that there can be tension between a nationally expressed democratic view and a local democratic view? Renewable energy and the promotion of wind farms provide a perfect example. There is overwhelming national support for more effort to extend renewables, but we have found through hard experience that it is extremely difficult to obtain local consent for the installation of wind farms in many parts of the country. It is precisely because of the need for the wider national view to be taken into account, and not always to be subordinate to interests that can often be hostile for local and parochial reasons, that the framework in the Bill is so necessary.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman is anticipating my remarks. Perhaps I should press on in order to reassure him on that point.
	The third reason for our proposals is that there will be more clarity and transparency in regard to the different roles involved. At present Ministers could be the people who determined the policy, the promoters of a scheme and, at the end of the process, those who made the decisions. I do not think that that is a good arrangement. Having this clarity by setting the policy up front through a national policy statement and then having the IPC look at individual decisions—and then in some cases for there to be a small ministerial intervention—is a good bit of architecture in terms of achieving the checks and balances referred to. There will be a clear separation.
	The second set of amendments addresses where a decision might be taken by the IPC but then be subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State within six months. Some people think that provides an alternative approach to the IPC simply being a recommending body. I do not think that that is so, because requiring the Secretary of State to confirm IPC decisions means in effect that Ministers are taking the decisions themselves. In order to get to the point of being able to decide whether to confirm a decision, it is necessary to review everything that has gone on, so there is still the position— [ Interruption.] Well, I am glad we have consensus on that. I do not need to go into the terminology and tautology of those amendments. They would add to uncertainty, and they might be even worse than the original set of amendments, which would have turned the IPC into a recommending body. That would undermine transparency as well. We will, therefore, oppose those amendments.
	On improving accountability, there will be clear policy statements and a power of intervention. That is already in the Bill. My discussions with Members have led me to believe that many people have not understood that the Bill as currently drafted includes the power for Ministers to intervene in certain circumstances, not only on national security and defence, but, for example, where the national policy statement does not cover a specific issue. The Minister can either decide to review the national policy statement or to take the decision. Again, where circumstances change or there is new evidence, the Minister can say, "The NPS doesn't bite, and therefore I intend to make the decision." That is important, because the terms on which our debate has been conducted have almost been that there is absolutely no point at which Ministers can intervene at all, and I want to make it clear that that is not the case.
	The Bill also includes provisions that make the IPC accountable, and that make it give reasons for its decisions and ensure that they are clear. I know, however, that people still have concerns; there has been vigorous debate in Committee. I therefore propose some changes to address those concerns, which I want to put on the record. I have had extensive discussions with Members—certainly from the Labour Benches—and they have expressed their views constructively, and also determinedly, because they feel that these issues are important to themselves and their constituents.
	First, I make a commitment that the national policy statements that cover nuclear power stations and airport development—the two most contentious forms of development covered by the Bill—will be location-specific. The national policy statements will not only cover the national need, but they will also say that development is likely to take place in certain areas, and it is unlikely to take place in other areas where, simply, it would not be suitable. As far as we can, we will make those location-specific. That is important, as it further constrains the ability of the IPC to take these decisions without reference to a politically determined framework that has been the subject of debate and scrutiny by the Select Committee and of public involvement.

Paul Truswell: Because national policy statements may well turn out to be very prescriptive, by the time that individual inquiries start at local level, local people might find that the die is already cast on many of the issues covered by them. Will my right hon. Friend therefore spell out in greater detail the extent of public consultation on national policy statements—the length of time and the process that will be followed?

Hazel Blears: I said "secondly", and I am going to get through my list, which is also important.
	Secondly, the Government have already proposed that the chair of the IPC should be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by a Select Committee. The Government have now agreed to extend that pre-appointment scrutiny to the deputy chairs of the IPC. I know that that was a concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), who is at this moment chairing her Select Committee, and I am delighted to be able to address it.
	Thirdly, there will be a requirement for the IPC to provide the Select Committee with reports on particular subjects that concern the Committee. Fourthly, the Government have agreed that the relevant Select Committees should be able to call the chair of the IPC before them to explain, not just the overall performance of the organisation, but particular aspects of decisions. I hope that it will be acknowledged that that is a significant shift in terms of accountability.
	Finally, and most importantly, I can give a commitment that the Government will carry out a review of how the IPC is working two years after its establishment. The Government have also agreed to table amendments in the other place so that if that review reveals problems, they can in future extend the grounds on which Ministers can intervene to remove decisions from the IPC and take the decisions themselves. This new amendment will ensure that if this system is not working, Ministers have a safety valve to widen the basis on which they can take decisions in future. That is a significant addition to the Bill and this is a very strong package of measures that, taken together, will strengthen democratic accountability. Labour Members have pressed hard for better democratic accountability in the new system and I am grateful for their constructive engagement.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I do not know why the Secretary of State gives way in such a churlish fashion.
	The right hon. Lady has just made the important statement to the House that aviation and nuclear decisions will be site-specific. That is, effectively, freezing in aspic from this moment onwards decisions on those sites until the national policy statements are made. Can she tell the House how long she expects the statements to take so that applications on aviation or nuclear sites can be considered by the IPC?

John McDonnell: The Secretary of State has just said that she has made a significant announcement about the two-year review. Can we have some clarity about how that review will be undertaken, who will undertake it, where it will report, whether it will be reported to the House, and whether any recommendations for further legislation will be voted on in the House as a result?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend raises a range of detailed issues. My announcement today was that there will be a review that will be supported by a regulation-making power, which will mean that we do not need primary legislation if we decide at that point that we have to widen the intervention power. I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunity to debate the detail of that issue, but as I have said, we will bring forward those proposals in the other place as the Bill goes through. That is a strong package for democratic accountability.

Elfyn Llwyd: As a lawyer, the Secretary of State will realise that the best test of any evidence is cross-examination. The commission will decide whether an objector has the right to cross-examine a proposer. That will be absolutely at the discretion of the commission—and that is dubious and concerning. I ask the Government to reconsider. I see that there are four stages, but why leave the veto in?

Lynne Featherstone: I thank the Secretary of State, who is being very generous. Are there any criteria or guidelines as to how the new consultation rights can make a difference to a proposal? Many consultations make no difference, and I am worried that people will feel that this is just a tick-box exercise, and not something that can deliver a different outcome.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Lady makes an important point. The Bill contains provisions ensuring that the IPC must give due weight to the various representations that are made. Clearly, experience from other forms of decision making shows that phrases such as "giving due weight" or "having regard to" have specific connotations. There is quite a body of evidence as to the weight that should be given to the various criteria, so we should be able to deal with the problem that she has identified. The consultation process is not new; if people want to mount a challenge because their views have not been taken into account, they will know the sort of criteria and weighting that should have been applied. As I said, we can issue guidance about the kind of consultation that ought to take place, and I do not think that the hon. Lady should be too concerned.
	Finally, I turn to new clause 42, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe. It would require the IPC to invite affected local authorities to produce reports on the views of their residents, the impact of a proposal on a community and its interaction with the local development plan. The legal formulation says that the commission "must have regard" to the local impact report, and that is a pretty strong way of making sure that elected local authorities have a bigger say on behalf of their communities. I entirely accept that this is a question of democracy. I want to make sure that we build in as many checks and balances as possible, but at the same time ensure that decisions are made speedily and efficiently. Local authorities will also be statutory parties to the examination. The arguments about the need for a formal role for local government have been very strong indeed, and I very much welcome new clause 42, and the supporting amendments Nos. 349 and 355.
	I urge hon. Members to reject amendment No. 327, tabled by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), which suggests that local authorities should be compelled to produce a report and that the IPC should pay for it. First, I am not in the business of compelling local authorities. I am trying to devolve more to them and give them more power, so I think that local authorities should do it for themselves. Also, the amendment does not make clear to whom that report should go. The amendment on that matter tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe is much to be preferred. I am sure that the hon. Member for North Cornwall will be disappointed with that.
	The final matter that I wish to deal with is whether a special parliamentary procedure should apply if the IPC wants to amend legislation. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) will know that the provisions on that matter are related to the amendment of some fairly elderly legislation that is often about railways and ports, and in many cases is more than 100 years old. Some of it is hybrid legislation, and on occasion the IPC may need to modify it as part of the single consents regime, which is a real prize that we want to get from the Bill. I want to ensure that it can do that.
	I do not think that we should have a special parliamentary procedure, which would be cumbersome and very difficult to administer. I suspect that beneath the relevant amendments lies the fact that the hon. Lady wants to reinstate either ministerial or parliamentary decision making instead of decision making by the IPC. The amendments are an intriguing way to seek to do that. None the less, on that basis I urge hon. Members to reject them.
	I want to make it clear that we shall accept new clauses 40 to 42 and amendments Nos. 340 to 355, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe.
	I have spoken for far too long, and probably taken far too many interventions. I hope that I have helped Members to see the overall thrust of the Bill, and I genuinely think that we need to make significant progress on getting a better system to take forward our proposals.
	I have just had sight of a letter that National Grid has sent the Leader of the Opposition about its concerns about the Opposition's position on the Bill. It is significant because it states:
	"Improving the way the UK gives planning approval for this infrastructure is now absolutely crucial to delivery of a secure, greener, energy economy for the UK. My fellow energy company Chief Executives and I therefore regard timely passage of the Planning Bill as essential."
	The letter asks all parties to ensure that we can proceed, for the benefit of the environment, and states:
	"Without a much smoother planning process we believe many of the aspirations you set out so clear in your Blue/Green Charter will not be achieved and all of us may find the UK in an ever more vulnerable situation."
	I ask hon. Members to think extremely carefully about that.
	As I have said, we shall support certain amendments, including amendments Nos. 340 to 355. I am grateful to hon. Members for their patience. I look forward to the debate and hope to be able to respond to any other matters that Members might raise.

Jacqui Lait: I had assumed, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we would follow the order in which Members' amendments were so charmingly read out by your predecessor in the Chair, but I rise with great interest after an hour and a minute. I shall try to be brief, because I know that many Members wish to be heard and that we are very short of time because of the programme motion.
	I shall address the amendments in roughly the same order as the Secretary of State and will consider the Government amendments first. She will be delighted to know that I do not have much objection to the amendments on national defence and security. I was pleased to learn that the suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on the commencement of development have been taken up, and I commend the Government for listening to us on at least one matter. If my memory serves me right, he also brought up the issue of changes in the details of an application during the Committee stage, so we can achieve something.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) on the acceptance of new clause 39, and I hope that he thinks that it is worth it in the long run. On special parliamentary procedures, the right hon. Lady is absolutely correct that we are most concerned about the lack of democracy in the infrastructure planning commission. I will speak to amendment No. 5 and various consequential amendments, which would bolster the special parliamentary procedure. I will also speak briefly to amendments Nos. 55 and 292.
	There has been quite a lot of discussion about the role of national policy statements. I do not wish to be ruled out of order, given that, as the right hon. Lady rightly reminded us, there has been a vote on that in the House. However, I hope that she notes that we stick to the view that national policy statements should be subject to a substantive vote in Parliament to ensure that the British people know that Parliament has spoken and the view given is not just that of the Government. Of course, that process would allow Ministers to retain the right of decision making. I assume that everyone in the House has been taking an interest in planning, so they will know that delays in the planning system are not entirely down to Ministers being unable to make up their minds. One of the reasons why there has not been much progress on infrastructure over the past 10 years could be laid at that door.
	We are replacing a tortuous and cumbersome system. However, I hope that I have made it clear on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report how we could deliver decisions on infrastructure more quickly and effectively without quite such a dramatic change—without completely pulling up the plants and chucking them away. If a national policy statement is passed by the House, Ministers will be quite capable of making decisions on infrastructure developments, even though those decisions can be difficult and Ministers might not wish to stand up to defend them. We do not need an unelected and unaccountable quango to do that for us.
	The right hon. Lady did not repeat the argument that the Secretary of State's role is quasi-judicial, which the Minister for Local Government cited regularly in Committee. We accept that, but the British public's perception regards the Secretary of State as the backstop of democratic accountability. One of the reasons why Ministers are in post is so that they can take tough decisions, and if the British public do not like those decisions, they can readily make a decision about them at the next election. I was glad that the right hon. Lady put it on record that Parliament will not have a substantive vote on the national policy statement because there is a misapprehension outside the Chamber that it will have such a vote.
	We are sad that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe, who fought a good fight in Committee for retaining democracy in the planning system, has done a deal. When the concessions that he has received are analysed, they do not amount to—

Jacqui Lait: "A mess of potage" is the other phrase that comes to mind.
	I gently point out to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe that a review of the functioning of the IPC after two years of its operations will certainly take place after the next general election. We could achieve what he stood for in Committee, because after the general election, we will review the IPC out of existence. I should also put on record that any person who applied to be a member of the IPC would have a very short contract. So I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels that we can achieve his purpose for him, and that it was therefore a concession that he could easily make.

Jacqui Lait: The hon. Gentleman must have been the bane of the Whip's life in Committee, because I seem to remember that he attended every single sitting. We went through this matter in great detail in Committee, but, because we have only 55 minutes left for this debate under the programme motion, I recommend that he goes back and reads the record of those proceedings. He will then be able to see how we proposed to improve the delivery of infrastructure development; it is all set out in the record.
	The other thing that the hon. Gentleman has kindly achieved is the introduction of location-specific national policy statements for nuclear power stations and airports. The Secretary of State said that those were the two most controversial points, but I look forward to her introducing the national policy statement on hazardous waste very soon. However, we now have location-specific NPSs for nuclear power stations and airports, which, by definition, will effectively give outline planning permission to those developments. The hon. Gentleman will remember that we discussed that matter in detail in Committee.
	The problem with the Government's proposals, and the lack of democracy involved in the proposed system, is that they lay the system open to the possibility of judicial review. Many people sincerely believe that the new system will deliver infrastructure more speedily, but I am afraid that they are likely to get an awful wake-up call. Many of the well-funded organisations who can afford to take court cases to judicial review have advised us that they will do so. So I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his achievements, and I hope that he thinks that it was all worth while.
	However, we will push forward with amendment No. 5. I apologise for all the consequential amendments involved. Their presence just shows that we have very diligent people working on the Bill with us. I would also point out that if the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) wishes to stick to his principles, I will have no problem with that. I could not place a cigarette paper—do we still talk about cigarette papers?—between his amendment and ours, and we would be happy to support his.
	We have been talking about the principles behind the IPC, and the difficulties that we foresee for it. However, we have always supported speedier infrastructure planning. We also believe wholeheartedly in the single consent regime; we just wish that it would go a bit further. We had that discussion in Committee, however, and it is not worth re-opening it here, although I am sure that the Lords will do so.
	I hope that the Secretary of State understands the point behind amendment No. 292. If she does not, I apologise for not making myself clear enough. The amendment seeks to remove the right of the IPC to take into consideration everything that is "relevant and interesting". The original Town and Country Planning Act 1947 stated that "material considerations" had to be borne in mind when reaching decisions. I have been told by my legal friends that the definition of "material consideration" was not agreed until 1970, some 23 years later. Given that the term "relevant and interesting" is possibly even looser than "material consideration", it is not difficult to envisage yet more legal cases to define "relevant and interesting". I urge the Secretary of State to bear in mind that if the whole issue of "material consideration" is opened up, her wish, and our wish, for a speedier system of delivering infrastructure will almost certainly be challenged in the courts for years to come. I hope that the Secretary of State will table amendments when the Bill reaches the Lords. I make that point in the best interests of planning—I hope that she does not believe that we are playing a party political role—because "relevant and interesting" may be mired in the courts for many more years than she envisages.

Jacqui Lait: My hon. Friend has made my point for me. It is not difficult to work out that, at every stage of the process, there will be a judicial review challenge. It is a sadness for me that we in this House are working towards passing a Bill in which the flaws are apparent whenever we make a new point. I wish that Ministers would take that on board, because none of us wants big infrastructure decisions stuck in the system in the way that they have been for the past 10 years in particular.
	The Secretary of State and the Minister for Local Government, who dealt with this in Committee, have made a great deal of the consultation that should be undertaken by applicants for development. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe has obtained an agreement, to which I have no objection, that local authorities will oversee the consultation, but that does not go far enough. Any applicant for any development—we are discussing infrastructure in the context of this Bill—should have not only consulted but resolved as many as issues as possible before submitting the application. If the hon. Gentleman thinks back, he will realise that I made that point, which is one of the ways to speed up the system, in Committee.
	Many of the objections to a planning application can be resolved before they even go to inquiry. These days, the duty to consult is regarded with the deepest scepticism by the people who should participate in the consultation, largely because of the top-down planning system that the Government have imposed through housing targets. People respond to consultations in good faith, but—this is true of a planning application that I have seen in the past 10 days—the decision by the Planning Inspectorate is entirely based on the particular district council not meeting its housing targets. That decision had nothing to do with the merit of the appeal or the views of local people; it was made just because the top-down housing targets had not been met. I am sorry, but consultation is now a dirty word among people who are trying to participate in the development of their communities. We have to go further than that, and I am sorry that this draconian Government do not wish to do so.

David Drew: Will the hon. Lady care to comment on something that I have difficulty understanding? Where under the national policy statement has there been mention of something site-specific? Does she think that there will have to be a further period of consultation if and when a promoter of a particular site comes forward, or does she think that, once the NPS is in place, that will be taken to have been part of the previous consultation? Will the hon. Lady help me with that?

Clive Betts: I will not respond to that in technical terms. My understanding is that there is currently a deficiency that would not allow people to have that right, which is covered by the new clause. I would have thought that such a change was fairly uncontentious. As I understand it, it would give people the same rights that they have to a public hearing on applications that go to the IPC. There has been a lot of misunderstanding on this matter, and I hope that Ministers will be able to make it absolutely clear that any individual who expresses an interest in an application that goes to the IPC will be able to ask for and get a public hearing, and that none of those matters will be dealt with by written representations in those circumstances.
	I explored the matter of potential delay with my right hon. Friends, and we come back to the proposals of the hon. Member for Beckenham concerning Ministers' confirmation. I suggested that Ministers could take all the decisions from the IPC and, where there was no contention or they had no concerns, they could fast-track them, but there may be other issues that Ministers might want to take longer to consider. The problem is that if Ministers decided that they had no particular concerns, they would still have to go through a long-winded process of assuring themselves that they did not have concerns. If they did not, a fast-track process might be subject to judicial review, with all the problems that that can bring about.
	It might be possible to introduce additional criteria meaning that Ministers could consider particularly contentious applications, but as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained, the Bill lists criteria such as cases where there are concerns of national security, where there is no national policy statement or where a policy statement is out of date, or becomes out of date before the application or during the process of considering it. In all those circumstances, Ministers can intervene. If there are other circumstances in which ministerial intervention might be appropriate, I would like to hear about them, because I am prepared to consider them, but I thought that it might be best to consider what comes out of the practical application of the process. If, during the first two years, there are clear examples of where it would be more appropriate to refer a matter to Ministers, criteria can be developed at the end of the two-year review. This House sometimes has an obligation to be proactive in such matters. My right hon. Friend has said that there will be pre-appointment scrutiny of the chair and vice-chair. Regular reports will be provided to Select Committees, and Select Committees currently request such reports.
	There is also a crucial point, which I raised, about accountability. Ministers can be brought to the Chamber to explain decisions about applications and now the chairman of the commission can be brought before any Select Committee. Indeed, the commissioners who make decisions can also be requested to appear before a Committee with the chairman to explain their reasons. If the House is proactive, it will build for itself a body of evidence about how the process is working and whether there are problems, and thus contribute to the two-year review. That is a challenge for us.

Paul Beresford: What would the hon. Gentleman expect to happen if, in interviewing the chairman and the Minister, the Select Committee decides that they are wrong, post decision?

Daniel Rogerson: We are discussing the most contentious aspects of the Bill, as the Secretary of State clearly pointed out. I am delighted that she is here to discuss the measure and to present those aspects this afternoon. I pay tribute to her for doing that, because the Minister for Local Government has handled the measure up to now.
	There is consensus in three corners of the House about one fundamental point, which was raised on Second Reading, in Committee and this afternoon: reform of the planning system to speed up and ensure that decisions are made effectively on major national infrastructure projects is required. Some aspects of the measure set out to do that. There is also agreement that national policy statements are a step forward and will help in that process and that a single consent process is a step in the right direction. Indeed, there is agreement on many aspects.
	However, the Government have failed to provide an answer about who makes the final decision. It is not fair to say that we can have all those other things without a democratically elected person making the final decision. I believe that that flies in the face of the purpose of the Bill and the Government's comments about local determination. Local member review is about strengthening the hand of locally elected representatives to make the final decision after officers have considered it in the first instance. Most hon. Members would support that.
	Amendment No. 339, which the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) tabled, amendment No. 5, which Conservative Front-Bench Members tabled, and amendment No. 68, which I tabled, would all do something similar. Although we accept that the planning system needs reform and that the Bill contains many helpful steps, the final decision must rest with someone who is accountable, not an appointed quango. Therefore, in common with the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), I am happy to say that my hon. Friends and I will be supporting the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) if he chooses to push his amendment to a vote. Obviously I say that on the basis that he will have the opportunity to do so. Indeed, if he does not press his amendment, let me signal my intention to do so for him, should that prove necessary.
	There are a number of other highly significant amendments in the group. I will try to rattle through them as quickly as I can. Essentially, we must get accountability back into the proposals. Our amendment No. 310, which seeks to limit to 40 the number of applications that the IPC can consider, is an attempt to probe the Minister for Local Government. He said in evidence to the Committee that
	"we can be pretty confident that, unless the proposals in the Bill for what should qualify as infrastructure projects for the IPC changes significantly, the sort of figure that we are talking about—40 or 45 on average a year—is what the IPC would be expected to deal with." ——[Official Report, Planning Public Bill Committee, 10 January 2008; c. 148, Q362.]
	However, in a subsequent parliamentary answer to me, that figure crept up to a firmer 45, plus an unspecified
	"larger number of less complex cases".—[ Official Report, 31 March 2008; Vol. 474, c. 712W.]
	Hon. Members who have been following proceedings on the Bill closely will know that we have returned to the idea of mission creep again and again. To me, that larger number of less complex cases is highly suspicious. Our amendment No. 310 seeks to hold the Government to what we have been told all the way through. I am not convinced that the IPC is the right way to proceed, but if it is, we should at least be able to hold the Government to the assurances that they have given us up to now.
	Amendment No. 327 seeks to make the new development consent process contingent on local priorities, although the Secretary of State was keen to point out that a number of the amendments are concerned with existing guidelines and policies. In common with others who have tabled amendments on that basis, I feel that all those processes and duly agreed-upon procedures and policies should be taken into account by the IPC. I therefore disagree with her that such an obligation should not be imposed on the IPC. Any wins that have been had by the local community and by those concerned with environmental considerations or whatever else it might be should not be lost at that point.
	Many of my constituents, and I am sure those of other hon. Members, have expressed considerable support for amendment No. 66, which the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) has tabled, which would ensure that people have the right to have their voices heard directly. That is an important issue that other hon. Members raised repeatedly in Committee, as we have heard this afternoon.
	New clause 7 seemed to cause the Secretary of State some concern. It deals with independent third-party oversight of consultation and does not really need much more explanation than the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) gave in an intervention, when he asked what confidence people would have in a consultation process carried out by the proposer of a scheme. That is a fundamental flaw in the process. We are talking about a consultation aimed at improving an application, so that when it reaches determination and a more formal inquiry process, a lot of the issues will have been dealt with. However, I am still not convinced that a local community can be confident that the proposer of a scheme will undertake that consultation in such a way that it truly reflects the concerns that have been raised, especially where they fundamentally disagree with what the proposer is trying to construct.
	Previously on Report, we sadly lost the chance to strengthen and improve the Bill with regard to mitigating climate change and adapting to its effects. Hon. Members have tabled amendments to make those points again about the key wins that we have already had on planning policy. We must hold the Government to that. Our amendments Nos. 69 and 70 focus on those issues.
	I am particularly keen that we discuss an issue that the hon. Member for Beckenham raised through her amendment No. 40, which applies to clause 110. The provision will cause much concern to people outside the House, as it will allow the IPC to set aside legislation that has been agreed in the House if it is in some way inconvenient to the determination that it is making. I think that that is fundamentally wrong. If changes to primary legislation are necessary, this House should take the decision on them; it should not be taken by an unelected quango, which is gifted that power under the clause. That is utterly wrong.
	There are a number of other flaws worth exploring. I am confident that many of the amendments in the group—sadly, we will not have the opportunity to vote on many of them this afternoon—would greatly improve the Bill. Let me respond to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), for whom I have a great deal of respect. Time and again in Committee, he stood up to make the case for improving the Bill. Sadly, in Committee as now, he decided not to press his amendments to the vote, so I was not surprised when he chose not to do so again this evening. His powers of analysis are on the record, but his negotiating skills may leave a little to be desired in the light of the concessions that the Secretary of State outlined earlier.
	Certain schemes such as nuclear sites and airport expansions would be considered under the national policy statement site-specific procedure. We have already heard about that; it has clearly been the Government's intention throughout the proceedings. I am sure that Members with constituencies near Heathrow will be concerned that decisions might be taken even further away from local people, who will not realise how crucial it is for them to get involved in the NPS. They will probably be waiting for a local or specific application, not understanding that they need to make their voices heard over the NPS. As to retrospectively bringing in the IPC chairman to answer questions from Select Committees, I doubt whether it will provide much reassurance to people who have had a scheme imposed on their local community.
	I am afraid that I am not convinced by what the Secretary of State said, grateful though I am that she has presented herself to the House this afternoon to try to justify the Bill. As I have already said, my party finds accord with many of the Bill's provisions, but we are certainly opposed on the issue of the IPC taking the final decision on matters of such importance. We shall therefore support the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Selby.

Paul Truswell: I speak in support of amendment No. 66, which I tabled. On Second Reading, I said that I would subject the Bill to a simple test: if my constituents face a major infrastructure planning application, how far would the process allow them to play a significant role in the decision on it. The process by which the IPC will undertake inquiries is grossly inferior to the current system. The measures proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have been a magnificent addition to what already exists: they are not a substitute for it.
	Removing the right of interested parties to test the evidence through cross-examination is a retrograde step. The other proposals in the Bill, such as the open mic session, do not compensate for the removal of the essential right to cross-examine. The open floor session does not include a right to ask questions, to produce witnesses or more formally cross-examine the applicant. It downgrades the right to be heard to little more than a right to sound off. Communities will not be satisfied with the limitations of the measure and the result may be more direct action, as we have seen in the past, or judicial review.
	The Bill provides opportunity for pre-application consultation that does not exist in the current system, but my experience—and that of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait)—is that such consultation is largely meaningless, because it is organised by the developer, who is not an independent arbiter of such matters. To be credible, consultation should and must be organised by publicly accountable bodies with a transparent process.
	Despite all the research that I have done, there is little evidence that the present opportunities for public involvement through oral hearings and cross-examination are responsible for inordinate delays. The terminal 5 inquiry is often mentioned in aid of such arguments, but much of that delay was down to the applicants' lack of preparation, the number of documents submitted, the several regimes under which the application was heard, and the time taken to reach a decision once the inquiry was over. The present system has been caricatured as a barristers' bun fight and we have heard talk of nimbyism and well-resourced non-governmental organisations. However—I think that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) nearly touched on this—it all comes down to what Winston Churchill once said about democracy being the worst form of government apart from all the rest. I believe that the measures that the Secretary of State is seeking to introduce to replace the current situation are simply a case of throwing the baby out of the bathwater, and so I shall want to press amendment No. 66 to a vote.

Amendment made: No. 66, in page 44, line 5, at end insert
	", subject to the right of interested parties to make oral representations.".— [Mr. Truswell.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 306.

Caroline Flint: We now turn to matters pertaining to part 9 of the Bill, including a number of measures that we hope will streamline and speed up the planning system. I understand that those policies were generally welcomed in Committee, although a number of hon. Members had queries on how some things might work in practice. We propose six sets of Government amendments that will make the provisions clearer and easier to use. I will try, in a thematic way, to cover the issues raised and the way in which we deal with them in our amendments, and to respond to the amendments tabled by the Opposition and by some of my hon. Friends.
	First, clause 149 enables the regional assembly to delegate its regional planning functions to the regional development agency. The clause is effective only where the regional assembly chooses to use it and the RDA agrees. Moreover, it enables only delegation, not transfer of planning functions. I know that concerns were expressed in Committee, and have been expressed since, that we may be accused of pre-empting the new legislation required to implement the sub-national review proposals. That is absolutely not the case. I would like to make it absolutely clear that the clause leaves unchanged the ultimate responsibility for regional planning to regional assemblies, whose membership is predominantly drawn from elected local government.
	Amendments Nos. 300 to 308 would replace references to the regional development agency with
	"a local authority for an area within its region (whether singly or jointly)".
	First, regional assemblies can already delegate planning work to local authorities so there is no need for legislation to that effect. Secondly, those changes would mean that they were not allowed to delegate to the RDA, even if they wanted to, because RDAs are currently precluded from doing such work.
	Amendments Nos. 311 to 313, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), would mean that a regional assembly could delegate its work to the RDA, but if the Secretary of State were undertaking the same functions, she would not be able to do so. Under planning legislation there is a reserve power for the Secretary of State to act as the regional planning body. This is, of course, a last resort to be used if there were a very serious problem, such as the collapse of the regional assembly. In such a case, the Secretary of State may want to involve the RDA and the amendments would prevent that from happening.

Lembit �pik: While I am reassured that the current Minister would regard the transference and exercise of those powers by a Minister as an act of last resort, we know from past experience that assurances given at the Dispatch Box are not tantamount to guarantees out in the country. What reassurance can we have that a less benign Ministersomeone who prefers to centralise such decisions more than she wouldwould not use that power to centralise decision making and sweep away local democracy?

Caroline Flint: Thank you very much. I have been praised twice on the record; that is not too bad. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support.
	Local member review bodies have created huge debate in local authorities and among those in the planning profession. Several hon. Members have supported the principle of local member review bodies, for which clauses 155 to 158 provide, while pointing out that it is important to sort out how they work in practice. We have discussed the provisions extensively with local government and planning professionals to explore that. I have also received several representations about what is workable. We need to consider whether, given the large number of planning reforms that we are asking local planning authorities to implement, it is also right to ask them to focus on the initiative.
	Although I recognise that amendment No. 290 seeks to be helpful, it would be contrary to the principle of local accountability on which our proposals are based. It would allow local planning authorities to discharge their local member review body functions through panels of elected members drawn entirely from other local authorities. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed to a vote.
	Government amendments Nos. 190, 191 and 192 are minor technical amendments to ensure that, when delegated cases are exceptionally determined by a committee or sub-committee of a local authority in the first instance, the right of appeal to the Secretary of State remains. Amendment No. 190 inserts the necessary provisions for planning applications under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
	Amendments Nos. 191 and 192 insert parallel provisions in relation to applications for lawful use or development certificates and in relation to applications for listed building consent. As I have said, there remain a number of important matters to work through on that proposal, and we may have something further to say when the Bill reaches another place.
	Turning to development consents, I should like to deal with three sets of largely technical amendments, the purpose of which is to make the development control system run more smoothly. Clause 159 deals with repeat applications and twin tracking. Government new clause 30, Government new schedule 5 and Government amendment No. 193 replace clause 159 and enhance the provision already in the Bill. They do so, first, by ensuring that the provisions dealing with repeat applications and twin tracking cover cases where an application is deemed to have been made by way of an enforcement appeal, and secondly, in the case of twin tracking, by ensuring that applications made on the same day are covered.
	Government amendment No. 195 modifies the provisions in clause 162, which concerns non-material changes to a planning permission. Government amendment No. 195 has the effect that where an applicant has an interest in some but not all of the land to which a planning permission relates, the power can be exercised only in relation to that part of the land in which he or she has an interest.
	The third set of technical amendments relates to clause 163(3), which concerns challenges to decisions called in by the Secretary of State on applications under development orders. Government amendments Nos. 196 and 286 relate to the current drafting of subsection (3), which contains the words Secretary of State. That wording potentially causes a problem for Welsh Ministers, since it might be contested that the term Secretary of State does not include Welsh Ministers. Our amendments fix that problem by removing the words Secretary of State.
	Let me turn to the issues relating to trees. Government amendments Nos. 197, 198, 275, and 280 to 285 are all related to clause 164, which, together with clause 165, I hope will simplify and bring uniformity to the existing system for making and maintaining tree preservation orders. The provisions in those clauses were generally well received in Committee. I hope that the amendments make further small but helpful improvements. In particular, they allow for regulations to permit a local planning authority to impose a time limit on consents for work to protected trees. Currently, consent given for pruning or felling protected trees lasts in perpetuity. However, where approved work has been delayed by several years, it may no longer be appropriate to undertake the work.
	Those amendments also allow for regulations to make provisions ensuring that trees planted as replacements for those that are felled with consent are automatically protected, unless that provision is waived by the local planning authority. In addition, those amendments will ensure that it is an offence not only to carry out unauthorised tree works to protected trees, but to commission a third party to carry out the work on someone's behalf.
	Let me turn to some non-Bill-related measures. There are six amendments that we do not feel relate to the Government's agenda in part 9. Those are amendments Nos. 2 and new clauses 2, 3, 4, 36 and 38. I hope to persuade hon. Members that those amendments should not be pressed. Let me deal first with amendment No. 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), which concerns third-party rights of appeal. Amendment No. 2 would establish a third party right of appeal against decisions on planning applications. Of course interested parties have the opportunity to have their say on planning cases, but we do not think a third party right of appeal is desirable.
	First, a third party right of appeal would dramatically increase the work load on the appeal system and cause significant delays in issuing decisions, and could also be used perversely to delay many otherwise acceptable developments. In addition, third parties have an opportunity to make their views known through representations at the application stage, via elected councillors, who have a responsibility to act in the general public interest. We in the Department are already working on a review of the planning application process and are also considering ways in which we can make community engagement far more constructive in planning applications at the local level.

David Drew: In a sense, I understand that we should be looking at the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, but I wanted to look further into how communities can advance their views. I agree with what the Minister says about the local development framework. The problem is that as those frameworks evolve, communities do not often get the opportunityand they certainly lack the voiceto make the necessary representations. If the Minister would like to talk to me some time about the possibility of a community enhancement Bill, we could look further into how to give communities the voice they need.

Caroline Flint: As I have said, I am not convinced of the argument that we need such a mechanism, but there is a lot more that we could do to make earlier parts of the planning process more inclusive and more accessible. There is a statutory obligation for local planning authorities to produce a statement of community involvement and policies for public involvement in planning functions in section 18 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me about some of his concerns, I will try to share with him some of our ideas for improving community engagement.
	I would like to correct myself; I have issued so much new guidance recently. PPS25, which we updated the other week, deals with floods; it is PPS12 that relates to the local development frameworks.
	New clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon), would make it a criminal offence to give false information on planning applications and appeals. We do not have evidence that that is a widespread problem. With very few exceptions, such as when information is sensitive, all documentation relating to a planning application or appeal is made public, and can therefore be challenged. The Planning Inspectorate already has plans to require witnesses to endorse claims that their evidence is true and represents their professional opinion. It can also take evidence under oath to establish the facts, although that is rarely considered necessary.

Caroline Flint: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive approach.
	New clauses 3 and 4 deal with health and permitted development rights in connection with telecommunications. Our policy on health in relation to telecommunications is clear: the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. That view is clearly stated in planning policy guidance note 8 on telecommunications, and supported by the National Radiological Protection Board.
	All telecommunications masts should comply with the international guidelines on radiation set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. We believe that those guidelines provide the necessary level of protection for the public, and that submission of a precautionary principle or beam of greatest intensity statement is not necessary.
	New clause 4 would revoke a range of permitted development rights relating to telecommunications masts and associated equipment. We believe that our planning policy in that regard strikes a balance between allowing local residents to have their say in development proposals and ensuring that our telecommunications network remains fit for purpose. We are currently reviewing the permitted development rights relating to electronic communications code operators, and if we decide that change is needed we will consult publicly on any options. New clause 4 would circumvent any public consultation and full consideration of an important planning issue.
	New Clause 36, tabled by the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), would remove ground (a), one of the seven grounds for making an appeal against an enforcement notice. I understand that the hon. Members' concern is focused on those who carry out development in breach of the conditions of a planning permission and appeal on ground (a) when subsequently served with an enforcement notice.
	If a breach of condition is the sole reason for taking enforcement action, the local planning authority can serve a breach of condition notice against which there can be no appeal. If the breach is not remedied within the specified period, the developer has committed an offence and is liable to prosecution. I therefore believe that local planning authorities have sufficient powers to deal with this issue, and that the removal of ground (a) would cause unnecessary administrative difficulties for the parties concerned. I hope I have reassured the hon. Members that the current system is the most efficient way of dealing with the issue.
	Moving on to the development of plant or machinery by railway undertakers, new clause 38 would remove permitted development rights for statutory undertakers to undertake essential maintenance and development work without first obtaining planning permission. Permitted development rights for statutory undertakers are well established and rightly allow a large number of routine but essential works to proceed without the need for planning permission. It would not be right to restrict these rights generally, but there may be problems in specific cases. Statutory undertakers should publicise any plans for permitted development if they consider that it might affect amenity or environment. That would give an opportunity for the local planning authority to consider whether to make an article 4 direction requiring the statutory undertaker to apply for planning permission. I believe that these arrangements generally work well. If the hon. Member for North Cornwall has evidence that that is not the case, I will be happy to discuss it further, but at present I think we should retain the current position.

Daniel Rogerson: I agree with my hon. Friend, and her point is reminiscent of a debate we had in earlier consideration of the Bill, when the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) was keen to ensure that the IPC took account of environmental and sustainability concerns to a greater degree than had been guaranteed by the Government's amendments. Bodies that are established by the Government with a narrow set of objectives will naturally seek to meet those objectives and they may well not therefore prioritise other aspects such as sustainability.
	Local member review has been controversial in some areas and we have been lobbied on the issue. I remain convinced that it is a helpful move in the right direction, and I hope that it will be defended. That would encourage people to believe that accountability is indeed being strengthened.
	The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who is no longer in his place, has withdrawn his amendment after reassurance from the Minister. Despite what I had to say about permitted development rights in another context, most of the issues about which the right hon. Gentleman was concerned are slightly different to those that I described, such as the case of a major light industrial building in an urban area. I am pleased that the Minister is continuing to negotiate on those issues and that we can reach a resolution that will satisfy those in the farming industry that their rights are being protected.
	I am pleased that the issues around RDAs are being aired because they are a cause for concern to many people in the House and outside. I also look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Groveif he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speakeron the issue of telecommunications masts.

Keith Hill: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that generous offer. It will certainly please my constituents, and I shall certainly avail myself of it, but in her initial statement she referred to the possible use of article 4 directions by local planning authorities to resist undesirable developments of the sort that I have described. She will know that that is not possible under part 11 of the GPDO. In the end, the Sternhold avenue development that has caused so much distress to my constituents was in fact carried out under part 11, and not part 17the subject of new clause 38.
	Like all the permitted development powers, part 11 of the GPDO confers pretty sweeping powers on railway undertakingsfor example, it excludes any requirement for an environmental impact assessment. However, there is a requirement for prior approval, albeit limited to grounds of injury to amenity or better siting being possible. In dealing with that part of the GPDO, chapter 15 paragraph 15 of the Lichfield report notes: Investigation of case studies where part 11 rights have been used failed to find any examples of adverse impacts arising which could not be controlled by local planning authorities.
	It is therefore perfectly clear that local authorities have been unable to prevent unreasonable developments. I very much regret that, back in 2002 and later, Lambeth councilat that period under a Liberal Democrat administrationdid not use those grounds at least to put the proposals under vigorous scrutiny. At least local residents would then have become aware of the threat at an early stage. It was a missed opportunity, just as the opportunity was missed to take the enforcement action against Southern railway for which those same Lib Dem councillors are now campaigning. With respect to the hon. Member for North Cornwall, new clause 38 seems rather like a case of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Jacqui Lait: It is a pleasure to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, having had an opportunity to listen to the points raised in the debate. I hope that the right hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) will forgive me if I do not follow him in covering the detail of his constituency interest. I am conscious that we are exceedingly short of time and that a number of Members wish to contribute, so I shall be as brief as I can.
	I start by thanking the Minister for taking on board a number of the points that were made in Committee and in subsequent lobbying. I am glad, too, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) has persuaded the Minister that things can be done about permitted development rights for the agricultural industry. I suspect that her colleagues in the Lords may well see the issue covered by new clause 2 re-emerging there, so that we can get further clarification.
	I say to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), with whom I shared many happy hours in Committee, that his new clause 4 on mobile phone masts comes close to a position on which we fought the last election. We believe that mobile phone masts should be brought into the mainstream planning system. That is part of the reason why we have supported single consent regimes throughout the passage of the Bill. It was also why I tabled amendments to try to bring all the remaining bits of the electricity, pipelines and gas Acts under one planning regime in the Department for Communities and Local Government.
	I will focus on the amendments that my hon. Friends and I have tabled, starting with amendment No. 300 and the consequential amendments that would be necessary to allow their lordships to consider a logical Bill. The Minister made a fair fist of explaining why the proposals were incorporated into the Bill late in the Committee stage. However, we do not like in any way, shape or form the policy of the remote regional assemblies passing their responsibility for planning to regional development agencies in due course. The Housing and Regeneration Bill, which is nearly an Act, hands over responsibility for housing to the RDAs, and we object to that, too. We do not think that the proposals in this Bill are appropriate because they begin the handover. The ethos of the Bill is one of the Government taking away accountability from the planning system as far as they possibly can. Removing accountability from even the remote regional assemblies by handing responsibility to unelected and unaccountable regional development agencies is entirely wrong.
	It occurs to me that I should have declared an interest. As I have said many times, my husband is the deputy chairman of the South East England Development Agency. However, he is there as an elected member. That does not mean that I resile from our position that RDAs should not have responsibility for housing and planning. They are entirely the wrong bodies for those functions. Housing and planning affect our constituents directly and they are already disaffected by the planning system [ Interruption. ] I welcome hearing a contribution from the Minister for Local Government, whom we have missed. He has been overruled by his lady seniors. Would he like to repeat that comment? I thought that I heard a sotto voce intervention that applied to my husband, but if he does not wish to repeat it, I shall await it on a different occasion. It is lovely to see him back and I hope that he will be able to make a contribution at some point, given that he has worked so hard on the Bill.
	A regional development agency is not the place in which housing and planning powers should be placed, given that they affect our constituents directly. RDAs are unelected and unaccountable. The regional Ministers are next to invisible. As the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy) pointed out, RDAs are not expert and do not have the staff. I recognise that they could hire staff, but that would entirely change their ethos. Their memberships have no expertise in housing and planning, but are focused entirely on economic regeneration. It would be completely inappropriate to hand any planning powers to such a body, so we are opposed to the Government's proposals in principle. The organisations that should have the powers are local authorities, which is why we have tabled amendments to that effect.
	In amendment No. 290, which relates to local member review bodies, we are very generously trying to help the Government out of a hole of their own making. We believe that it is appropriate for local authorities with planning responsibilities to be able to review the decisions of their planning ministers on issues that are devolved to officers. Anyone with experience on a planning committee in a local authority will know that they are more than capable of sending officers back to review a decision, and to challenge it if they believe that that would be in the interests of their constituents.
	I have here a letter from the Minister for Housing, who has come to the House today to talk about the Bill for the first time. The letter is addressed to representatives of the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Royal Town Planning Institute, and it says that the planning decisions made by the local member review bodies would involve only
	the most straightforward applications, such as small householder developments, changes of use, advertisements and shop fronts.
	My copy of the letter is not quite clear, but I think that it was sent in April.
	The Minister said that she had had further discussions with the various organisations to try to persuade them of the rightness of this proposal. However, a briefing that I have received from the Royal Town Planning Institute, dated 30 May, states:
	Proposals for Local Member Review Bodies to hear planning appeals need to be scrapped. These plans will sweep away the right of residents to appeal to an independent and impartial body.
	Clearly, the Minister's persuasive powers have not worked, or at least they had not worked on 30 May with the RTPI. Perhaps things have changed since then, but I do not think so, given the briefings that I have received.
	However, because we believe that it is for local members to make these decisions, we have come up with amendment No. 290, in order to get the Government out of this hole that they have dug for themselves. It proposes that councillors from surrounding local authorities could be invited to sit on the review bodies. As with any of our amendments that the Government are prepared to accept, I am more than happy to offer to amend this one to ensure that it is appropriate. The Minister thought that its wording meant that potentially every member of the review body could come from outside the local authority in question. If she wishes us to amend our amendment, I will be happy to offer to do so. None the less, I would be grateful if consideration could be given to the proposal, because it would deal with the concern that has been expressed by the various bodies involved.
	Working on the basis that we would like to see the changes that I have outlined, I want to ensure that other Members have an opportunity to express their views. We will consider whether to press our amendments to a vote in due course.

David Drew: I rise to speak to amendment No. 2, which stands in my name. Its contents are not a million miles away from the proposals put forward by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) in Committee, and I should state from the outset that I do not intend to seek the leave of the House to press it to a vote, because I have heard what my right hon. Friend the Minister has said. I shall be interested to see what the proposed community empowerment, housing and economic regeneration Bill will do to enhance the opportunity of communities to get their point of view across in relation to aspects of the planning process. It might be one of the laws of politics that Oppositions like third party rights of appeal, and that Governments certainly do not, but I still think that there is merit in making the case that the planning process is not accessible, and certainly does not give a voice, to all communities.
	Two obvious examples are pertinent to my constituency. First, when councillors on a local authority with planning powers support a particular application but people in the area concerned, which may include the parish or town council, are against it, the people have no voice once the decision has been taken. As has been said, the developer has two bites of the cherry in pursuing an application. Indeed, they may have many more bites, because they can keep resubmitting an application until they get consent, whereas those who oppose such an application have one chancethey have no chance if their councillors choose not to listen to their point of view. Secondly, sometimes people live very close to a particular application that is in a different local authority area. It is not unknown for a local authority as a whole to be against an application, but if the people in the community happen to be on the wrong side of the border, it means that there is no opportunity to make their voices heard. Those are two straightforward examples where a third party right of appeal would be of some benefit.
	I know that people will always say that such an approach would not be practical and would be difficult to introduce. However, Australia and the Republic of Ireland, to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall referred in Committee, use such an approach, so there is good practice out there. We have a problem in this country when it comes to allowing the people to have a voice, even though they may choose to use their voice in a respectable way to exercise their democratic opinion.
	I look forward to hearing what the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), has to say. The issue will not go away, because some of us will not let it go away, but this is not the appropriate moment to pursue it. I hope that the Lords consider the issue and that the next Bill provides proper democratic accountability and an opportunity for people to make their voices heard.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to be able to speak in this debate. Time is marching on quickly, so I just want to make one or two brief points on this large group of amendments with which the Minister dealt in great detail, which was extremely helpful to the House.
	I support the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), who made a cogent case, although I am not sure that he quite understood my comments. I think that it is now technologically possible, via roaming, which happens much more extensively on the continent than it does here, for more mobile phone companies to share masts, which would mean that fewer would be required. However, that does not obviate his point that we still need to bring them within the planning system and they need to have a health check before they are erected.
	I support the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), because I have argued strongly that planning powers should not be given to the regional assemblies. To give those powers to the regional development agencies is an even worse proposal, because they are less democratic than the regional assemblies. The regional assemblies have indirectly elected members, but regional development agencies have no democratic accountability whatsoever. Much of my constituency, which is in the south-west region, is nearer to the Scottish border than to Penzance, yet the regional development agency insists on having its offices in Exeter, which is one of the furthest points away from it. The idea that it should control housing numbers in my constituency is completely unacceptable to my constituents.
	As I said to the right hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), I have a sense of dj vu about several of the issues that have been discussed today. He will recall that repeat planning applications came up in our previous debates in 2004, and I welcome those parts of the Bill, and the amendments, that deal with repeat and concurrent planning applications. I have taken part in previous debates on permitted development rights, and I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Streatham, who was right to say that the development in his constituency was carried out under paragraph 17, not paragraph 11, of the general development procedure order, where article 4 would have applied. The Secretary of State talked about using article 4 directives, but as she will know, as she has become such an expert in planning, local authorities are wary of issuing such directives because they have to pay compensation if they do so and permission is passed. They are wary of using that mechanism, and the right hon. Member for Streatham will remember that we had discussions about the difficulties of using such directives in the case of Gypsies.
	I would like to talk briefly about local member review bodies, because there is a serious question about their membership. If they are to work properlyand they could be a good ideathey must seen to be properly objective by our constituents. If people's rights to appeal are taken away in lieu of those local member review bodies, the composition of those bodies should reflect a fair membership that is truly objective, professional and able to act instead of the Planning Inspectorate.
	Finally, I would like to say something about permitted development rights and the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). It is absolutely right that the Minister has agreed to meet members of the National Farmers UnionI declare an interest as a farmer and a chartered surveyor. If farmers' permitted development rights for erecting smaller agricultural buildings are taken away, that will be a cause of concern. Larger agricultural buildings and buildings near public rights of way have to have planning permission under the existing regime so it is only rights relating to small buildings in very rural locations that will be affected by the provisions. I am grateful to the Minister's agreement to meet my right hon. Friend, and I hope that productive discussions will stem from that.
	There are a host of other issues that I could discuss, but time is moving on. I regret that we do not have more time to discuss them, and I regret the fact that we will not get to the clauses on the community infrastructure levy. That is a huge discredit to the Government, because we ought to be discussing that very important part of the Bill today.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 32 Wales: transitional provision in relation to blighted land.
	Government amendment No. 199.
	Amendment No. 298, in page 106 in clause 173, leave out lines 16 to 31.
	Amendment No. 299, in page 106 in clause 173, leave out lines 34 to 38.
	Government amendments Nos. 247, 248, 260, 265 and 267.

Amendments made: No. 228, page 115, line 6, leave out from 'served' to end of line 9 and insert
	', given or supplied under this Act may be served, given or supplied in any of these ways
	(a) by delivering it to the person on whom it is to be served or to whom it is to be given or supplied,'.
	No. 229, page 115, line 12, at end insert
	'(ba) by sending it by post, addressed to that person at that person's usual or last known place of abode or, in a case where an address for service has been given by that person, at that address,'.
	No. 230, page 115, line 21, leave out from 'body' to end of line 25 and insert '
	'(i) by delivering it to the secretary or clerk of the company or body at their registered or principal office,
	(ii) by sending it by post, addressed to the secretary or clerk of the company or body at that office,
	(iii) by sending it in a prepaid registered letter or, or by the recorded delivery service, addressed to the secretary or clerk of the company or body at that office.'.
	No. 231, page 115, line 33, leave out 'or given' and insert ', given or supplied'.
	No. 232, page 115, line 35, leave out from '(4)' to end of line 36 and insert
	Subsection (1)(ba), (d) and (e)(ii) do not apply to the service, giving or supply of any of the following
	(a) notice under section 50(4)(b);
	(b) a compulsory acquisition notice under section 121;
	(c) notice under section 136(3);
	(d) an information notice under section 140;
	(e) a notice of unauthorised development under section 142.'. [John Healey.]
	 Amendment made: No. 233, in page 115, line 38 [Clause 187], at end insert
	'(6) This section is subject to any contrary provision made by or under this Act.'. [Mr. Watts.]

John Healey: I rather regret giving way to the hon. Gentleman now, as he has a habit of coming in halfway through a debate and going off half-cocked. The Bill does not cover those matters, nor does it touch that part of the planning system.
	Some of the proposals in the Bill involve tough decisions, but they will help meet this country's vital long-term needs for more homes, nuclear power and airport extensions. Faced with those difficult planning decisions, the Tories have ducked and divedworse, though, they have at times played the Bill for short-term political gain. In Committee they voted against the IPC, preferring that the planning inspectorate should do the job of hearing applications. At the start of the Report stage today, a Tory amendment accepted the IPC, but only to make recommendations. By the end of Report stage, they voted to allow the IPC to make decisions, but only if they were confirmed by the Secretary of State after six months.
	Not only do the Opposition duck the difficult questions, their policy moves with the political wind. There is no consistency or credibility, so no wonder they are still not taken seriously by serious opinion. Today's edition of the  Financial Times devoted a leading article to the Planning Bill. It said that the Tories
	are facing in two directions at once. Despite their claims to want more housing and development, they are prepared to sink the reforms necessary to deliver a better system...Leader David Cameron's half-pregnant pose on planning will not do.
	Another heavyweight view was expressed in a latter last week to the Leader of the Opposition. It stated:
	Improving the way the UK gives planning approval for this infrastructure is now absolutely crucial to delivery of a secure, greener, energy economy for the UK...Without a much smoother planning process we believe many of the aspirations you set out so clear in your Blue/Green Charter will not be achieved.
	That letter was written by Steve Holliday, the chief executive of the National Grid, on behalf of all this country's major energy companies.
	In other words, we have a Conservative party with a leader who cannot take tough decisions, and who cannot say where he stands on the big issues, because he is too concerned with his immediate political position. I say to my hon. Friends that that is good for Labour, good for the Government and good for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister sees what Britain needs for the long term and he is determined to see the changes through the short-term difficulties, because they are essential for the country. I am pleased to say that the House has given the Bill strong backing in Divisions on all the main issues, which is a sound basis on which to send it to the other place. I look forward to seeing the Lords lend their support to the Bill's main provisions, as this elected House has.

Jacqui Lait: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not think that I had become wholly invisible. That is a more relaxed note for me to start on than if I had started by attacking the Minister for his rather unpleasant summing up. Although we had our differences, we behaved very reasonably in Committee and exchanged a lot of views, although we may not have agreed. We had a very pleasant atmosphere, and it is a great shame that there is this rather bitter and twisted approach on Third Reading.
	It is lovely to see the Minister back, by the way. He has worked so hard, and then he was pushed aside for the two really difficult groups of amendments that we debated this afternoon. I think he needs to keep his women under control.
	We need to agree where we agree, and make it absolutely clear where we disagree and why. Nobody disagrees that we need to speed up infrastructure planning. In fact, one of the most shocking things that happened in the past 10 years was that when Tony Blair became Prime Minister, he instantly ducked decisions on nuclear power, and did so for 10 years. Now, suddenly, the Government are wedded to nuclear power. For 10 years they have deliberately not made decisions, and we are now facing the hangover from that.
	The deputy director of the CBI asked earlier this week what we would do when the lights went out in 2015. Even with the changes in the Bill, there is no way that we will get new nuclear power stations up and running by then. Let us work together to try to ensure that we speed up infrastructure planning applications.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is most likely that the first nuclear power station will be in my constituency? I welcome that, so there is nothing wrong with my saying on one hand that I want the Government to make decisions instead of hang about for 10 years before doing so, but on the other hand that they are much more likely to get their plans through if my constituents have a clear ability to talk about what they care about locally, without a quango interposing. That is the issue that we have had to consider.

John McDonnell: The behaviour of the House in agreeing the programme motion and conducting today's debate has been little short of a disgrace.
	The practical implication of the Bill is that it will most probably be used in my constituency first with regard to Heathrow. Before Members walk through the Lobby tonight, they should recognise what they are doing. If they vote for the Bill and it is used at Heathrow, thousands of people will lose their homesthey will be forcibly removed from their properties. Those parents who send their children to Heathrow primary, William Byrd school and Harmondsworth school will see those schools demolished. The proposal will also mean a roadway through Cherry Lane cemetery, so we will dig up our dead as a result of the proposals for Heathrow that will be forced through under this procedure. When Members vote tonight, they should recognise the human implications as well as the pollution of the air of communities across London.
	It denigrates this House to force through a Bill in this way. As we have heard, there will be no votes in this House on national policy statements. No Member of Parliament who has a big scheme, such as the one at Heathrow, inflicted on them will have any say in this Chamber on that proposal. People will ask themselves, What is the point of voting? Others will ask themselves, What is the point of standing for Parliament?, if they can have no say on a national policy statement that has implications for our country.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that policy statements will be site-specific. Inquiries and discussions at the local level will be pre-empted without even a vote in this Chamber. When hon. Members vote to destroy my local community with this legislation, it will possibly be their last chance in this Chamber to vote on the matter. They should understand the implications.
	In addition, we now know that the consultation will be undertaken by the developer, which means that BAA will undertake the consultation on the expansion of Heathrow. That organisation has lied and deceived this Chamber and my community on a consistent basis over every development proposal at Heathrow.
	Turning to the inquiry, local people will no longer have the right to be heardlet us be honest about that. They will have the right to turn up at an open mic session, where will they will compete with hundreds, if not thousands, of others who are trying to make their voices heard. They will not be allowed to interrogate anybody who introduces such a proposal.

John McDonnell: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not give way, because I have two minutes left.
	Let us not kid ourselvesthe Bill undermines the democratic process. We are outsourcing democratic decision making to the IPC, because the Secretary of State will not be responsible and we will not have a final vote on the decision. You know as well as I do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when we undermine the powers of this House, people go elsewhere. We will be encouraging the largest direct action movement that this country has seen since the suffragettes. People will not only climb on the roof of this Chamber, but lie down in front of bulldozers when the developers come to smash their homes and demolish their churches, schools and community centres.
	Hon. Members need to be aware how fundamentally different this Bill is from anything that we have considered beforeit is not an administrative measure to speed up the planning process. It undermines the democratic involvement and engagement in the planning process that we have had in this country for two centuries. When Members vote tonight, I want them to remember the families who will be forced out of their homes in my constituency. I want them to know the names of the schools that will be demolished, and I want them to remember Cherry Lane cemetery, where the dead will have to be dug up if this legislation goes through and the Heathrow expansion is forced through as a result.
	I am ashamed of what has happened in this Chamber today. We have not even been allowed to speak to the amendments that were tabled in my and other Members' names because of the Government's programme motion. What are we doing tomorrow? Nothing! We could have had this debate tomorrow and on other days, because it is so significant for the future democracy of this country. Yet the Bill is being railroaded through. I want my constituents to know that it goes through with my opposition and my protest today.
	 It being Eight o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker  proceeded to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Orders [2 June and this day].

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:
	 The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 198.

Nurses Training

John Hayes: I am pleased to have secured the Adjournment debate about a case that is of great concern to my constituents, especially those in and around Spalding. As I mentioned to the Chair, I will present a substantial petition on the subject in the coming days, but tonight I want to focus on the issues that lie behind the petition, which many thousands of my constituents have signed.
	Perhaps it would be helpful to say a word or two for those less well acquainted than you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with my fenland constituency about its character and nature. I am proud to represent a very rural constituency. Around 40 per cent. of the local population are designated as country dwellers. Almost an eighth of the population is directly employed in agriculture or horticulture, and many other businesses that are major employers in south Lincolnshirethe supply businesses, the haulage industry and so onare related to horticulture and agriculture. That is the context in which I wish to make a case about the closure of some of the important services that add to the quality of life in my constituency.
	I want to speak especially about Spalding tax office and our driving test centre. Before that, let me emphasise that the essence of the message that I wish to convey is about rural-proofing and the quality of life in rural communities. At the culmination of my short speech, I hope that I will hold the Government to account for their assertions about their belief in rural-proofing, which if it is to mean anything, should mean the maintenance of vibrant communities that can enjoy a quality of life based on the provision of important public and community services.
	The Inland Revenue office in Spalding provides one such serviceindeed, an excellent serviceto residents with concerns about tax issues and a number of major local employers whose tax affairs are dealt with solely at that office. Yet you will be as shocked as I was, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to learn that the office's closure is foreseen by the Government. It is possibleindeed probablethat the tax office in Spalding will close; or rather, it will unless Ministers listen to the clarion call coming not from me, but from my constituents. I am merely a vehicle for their energetic campaign to keep that office open.
	Companies that collectively employ thousands of people locally rely on the expertise of the tax office, which they can easily access. In the last year, the Spalding office has dealt with more than 10,000 inquiries and has been identified as one of the most cost-effective tax offices in Lincolnshire, with very low operational costs. The closure would have a harmful impact on the most vulnerable people in the communities that I represent, particularly the elderly, the disabled and families without cars, for whom a journey to the next nearest office would prove most difficult. The closure would have a detrimental effect on South Holland and on south Lincolnshire's communities, diminishing the quality of life.
	Furthermore, I question how the proposal to close the tax office fits in with the Government's overall strategy. It certainly cannot be justified on financial grounds, as it has become clear from parliamentary answers that the savings from closing the office would be very small indeed. I have already mentioned that the office has low operational costs, and its work would be absorbed by other offices, where costs would consequently rise. The decision certainly cannot be squared with the Government's policies on rural communitiesor at least not with their assertions that they have positive policies for rural areasbecause it would have a severe effect on what is a rural town in a rural part of one of the most rural counties in Britain.
	The decision cannot really be squared with the Lyons review, either. The Minister is a man of good faith who takes such matters seriously. I trust that he will listen to the argument that I am making and consider most carefully whether the closure of the Spalding tax office meets any of the criteria that I have described and whether it stands up. When he stands up, perhaps he will tell us how much money would be saved; whether he has drawn any conclusions about the impact on the users of the office; and where they would go to seek the advice that they need. Has he made any assessment of the effect on the staff at that office, whose expertise is greatly valued and whose service is greatly appreciated by many of my constituents? The expertise that has, if I may put it this way, been collected at that office is substantial, but it would be dispersed should the closure plan go ahead.
	Bang next door to the tax office is the Spalding driving test centre; indeed, it is in the same building. Recently, I was pleased to visit recently and meet not only representatives of the tax office, but driving instructors and members of the local community who are concerned about the centre's potential closure. Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, shocking though it is, not only is the tax office threatened, but so is the driving test centre. When the heart is ripped from a rural community through reductions in the number of services that can be accessed within them, the lives of the people who live there are affected disproportionately. A rural community is not like a city or a large town, where people can easily find those services elsewhere.
	I shall also say a word or two about post offices in a moment, but I want first to explore the issues of the test centre a little more fully. There has been no consultation with those adversely affected by proposals of the Driving Standards Agency and the Government proposals to close the Spalding driving test centre. In July 2005, the Department for Transport introduced a code of practice on written consultations on matters relating to driving test centres. Consultation does not have to take place if the relocation is for legislative requirements such as the new motorcycle tests. Why is that? Perhaps the Minister will tell us. Surely the loss of a driving test centre has the same impact on people who rely on the service it provides, irrespective of the reason for its closure. Do not local representatives such as councillors anddare I say itthe Member of Parliament, and members of the community, people whose employment depends on the test centre and people such as our excellent South Holland youth council, all deserve to be consulted on such a change?
	I mention the youth council, of course, because many of the people who learn to drive in my constituency are, as I guess they are elsewhere, young people who will now have to travel much further to take their test. You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that people usually like to be taught where they are going to be tested or tested where they have been taught, so what is proposed will have a big effect on learners and instructors. The staff, the unions and the students themselves have not been consulted; in my judgment, they deserve to have their voices heard.
	The chief executive of the DSA, Rosemary Thew, says that the agency has to comply with European Community directive 2000/56/EC, which demands significant changes to the practical tests of motorcyclists with more demanding special manoeuvres. This requires the creation of a safe off-road area for testinghardly a sound excuse for closing the test centre in Spalding when such a facility could be provided quite easily in the locality by extending the existing test centre. Why has little or no consideration been given to that option?
	I mentioned the cost savings of the closure of the tax office. A similar picture emerges in respect of the test centre. On 29 April, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), released data in response to a written parliamentary question showing that the closure of the test centre in Spalding will save only 4,660 a year. Yet the Government are presumably arguing their case around a rationalisation that they claim will save money. This is the lowest figure for any of the 26 test centres earmarked for closure across the country. Such small savings are hard to justify when the impact on the environment, increased travel times and increased costs for instructors and students, as well as easy accessibility, are taken into consideration. My constituents are being penalised by the DSA in order to recover costsalbeit, in the case of Spalding, an almost unimaginably small sum in terms of total savingsas a result of yet another costly EU directive. I must not go down that road, Mr. Deputy Speaker, else I would test your patience and probably begin to tire the Minister, too.
	There is no additional capacity in the new Peterborough test centre as there are no plans to increase the number of existing examiners from the 10 already located at the centre. If Spalding test centre is forced to close, it will overstretch the centre at Peterborough and potentially double the current eight-week wait for a test. So we are talking about longer travel times, a longer wait for a test, environmental damage and minimal cost savings; I think it is time for a good Minister, regardless of party, to think again.
	The Government's plans to close the test centre in Spalding will, as I said, drive up costs. That could hit young people in particular very hard. Spalding was originally earmarked to have its own new multi-purpose driving test centre, and there continues to be a strong case to support that type of provision in the town. The current centre is profitable; demands for tests locally are high and growing; and retaining test services in Spalding would reduce travelling distance, as I said. Why, then, has the DSA withdrawn its plans to provide Spalding with a new multi-purpose centre? Again, the Minister will perhaps have a chance either today or subsequently to make that clear.
	As I said at the beginning of my short speech, the Spalding tax office provides a very important service for businesses and individuals in my constituency. Similarly, the test centre is an important part of life in a town that lies at the heart of South Holland.
	There are a number of other facilities in constituents like mine that are threatened with closure. Members will know of concern about the loss of the rural post office network. This morning I met representatives of Postwatch, here in the House, to discuss the possible loss of further post offices in villages in my constituency. Small schools also need to be protected, because they give life to small rural communities. Village shops and pubs, too, have their part to play in making life more agreeable for people who live in remote places such as my constituency.
	I do not expect the Minister to be able to deal with all the points that I have raised in the short time available to him tonight, but I do expect him to say something about the Government's policy on rural proofing. Rural proofing, we have been told by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is
	a commitment by Government to ensure that all its domestic policies take account of rural circumstances and needs.
	The Department states:
	It is a mandatory part of the policy making process, which means that, as policies develop, policy makers should systematically...Consider whether their policy is likely to have a different impact in rural areas, because of particular circumstances or needs... Make a proper assessment of those impacts, if they are likely to be significant... Adjust the policy, where appropriate, with solutions to meet rural needs and circumstances.
	That is the Government's policy. It is not something that I have invented, although I agree with all those statements and approve of all aspects of what constitutes a truly effective policy for rural proofing.
	We are told by the Government that rural proofing
	applies to all policies, programmes and initiatives and it applies to both the design and delivery stages.
	How does the forced closure and centralisation of front-line public services in rural areas, including the tax office and driving test centre in Spalding, comply with those stated Government policies on rural proofing?
	Spalding is as rural as you can get. I have mentioned my constituency's dependence on agriculture and horticulture. The test of rurality is interesting. It might be defined as a combination of employment of that kind with a measurement of sparsity. By that measure, South Holland and The Deepings is one of the most rural constituencies in Great Britain. If rural proofing does not apply there, where on earth does it apply? The Government seem to have forgotten the existence of their rural White Paper and its stated objectives. Certainly rural-proofing seems to have played little or no part in their decision-making process in the case of the tax office and driving test centre in Spalding.
	It is clear to me that the concerns I have raised about the closure of those two important facilities have yet to be properly considered. I do not blame this Minister for that, but I am anxious to draw these matters to his attention in the confident expectation that he will give them diligent consideration and, if he and colleagues think it necessary, reconsider. I urge him to do so.
	Spalding is a growing town. Its population has already grown significantly over the last decade or more, and there is potential for further growth over the next decade and beyond. The demands on the tax office are not shrinking, but growing. The demands on the test centre are growing too. The expertise that has been developed, particularly at the tax office, will not be easily replaced, and it will be very difficult for a future Government of any political persuasion to reinvent what has been lost.
	I simply ask the Government not to act in haste and repent at leisure. It would do no favours to Government, and it would certainly do no favours to the people of South Holland and The Deepings, who deserve much better. While I am their Member of Parliament I will, at the very least, miss no opportunity and expend all my energy in championing their case in the House of Commons, and I am delighted to have had the opportunity to do so this evening.

Parmjit Dhanda: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) on securing this debate, and on representing a constituency with one of the finest namessecond only, perhaps, to that of the city of Gloucester. May I also respond to his remarks on rural proofing? Wearing my other hat as Minister for the fire and rescue service, I was in Lincolnshire just a few days ago, and I wish to put on record that I saw that Lincolnshire fire and rescue service does very good work, particularly the retained firefighters. About three quarters of firefighters in Lincolnshire are retained firefighters. They work in the rural communities that the hon. Gentleman described and not only do a good job in firefighting, but good work in co-respondingin ambulance and fire services working together in harness and supporting each other. That is a great example, from which we can learn. As I told the chief fire officer, I am keen to follow up on that, and to see more of that kind of work being done and to learn from some of that best practice. That is a good example of rural services leading the way.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about his local tax office, which I will address, and his driving school, and he also spoke more generally about issues in Spalding, such as those to do with post offices. In my experience as a constituency MP, the big issues concern schools and hospitals, and perhaps driving centres to an extent, as my father was a driving inspector, although I attended driving school only twice, first when I failed my driving test at the age of 17, and then a few months later when I passed it. I do not spend a great deal of time in tax offices either, but I accept that every constituency is different, and perhaps these two institutions are particularly relevant in Spalding and play a big role in his local community.
	I do not want to wish closure on the hon. Gentleman's tax office. From what he said, and from what I understand, no such decision has yet been made, but his community is gearing itself up, in preparation for possible future decisions, to defend an institution that it values so much. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs has undergone a systematic process of review, consultation and announcements on tax offices across the whole UK. The review process is virtually complete for office buildings in the east Midlands region and I understand that an announcement is expected to be made to staff and trade unions before our summer recess, and Members with a constituency interest in the area will be notified by HMRC at the same time.
	HMRC is making significant changes to the way it carries out its business so that it can meet the demands of its customers and meet the requirement we, as Ministers, are making of it to optimise efficiency. Many customers now choose to telephone HMRC offices, and they also use the internet far more than in the past to file returns or make claims; indeed, I file my tax returns on the internet. Therefore, it is right for senior management to look at all their operations to ensure that they are run as efficiently as possible. In some work areas, they see that need as best being served by concentrating work in larger units where the processes can be streamlined and improved. In other areas, a more mobile work force are seen as the best solution to meet customer needs.
	I am happy to confirm that, whatever the outcome of the review for the offices in SpaldingI genuinely do not know what that outcome will beas well as those in the east midlands as a whole, we can say that inquiry centres will be maintained in their current locations or nearby and the same level of customer service provided. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will ask more questions both here and locally to obtain such assurances. Staff will not be required to move to an office beyond a reasonable daily travel distance, and there is an established process for managers and staff to discuss options for their future employment, dependent on the outcome of the review, which is open, transparent, accessible and involves the trade unions.

Parmjit Dhanda: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The criteria that will be used include the distance that staff will have to travel and the trade unions will make the point as forcefully as he has just done.
	Proposals to rationalise work and office space across the east midlands were put forward for consultation in March this year. Staff, the trade unions, hon. Members and local authorities have contributed to that consultation, providing information on travel routes, economic interests in the locations, the position of other employers and Departments, as well as individual circumstances that should be taken into account. Reports summarising those responses were published earlier today.
	Let me emphasise that all the information that was provided during the consultation is being considered by HMRC in arriving at its recommendations. I welcome this debate as part of the Government's commitment to the process of consultation and openness in moving forwards. HMRC has embarked on a long-term programme that will deliver a more responsive and efficient service for taxpayers and claimants. The point that the hon. Gentleman made about rural-proofing is relevant and I am glad that he has put it on the record.
	I turn now to driving test centres. I am not a Transport Minster, but I have it on good authority that Ministers have agreed that the development of a new national network of driving test centres is required not only to facilitate the new European requirements for practical driving and riding tests, but to provide driving tests that are more relevant to modern driving conditions and to help to ensure safety on the roads.
	The Department for Transport published its Safe driving for life consultation document in May and it raises a number of questions on failure rates for first-time driving test candidatesI confess that I was one of them many years agoand the fact that so many people are being killed on the roads. Unfortunately, I have seen that happen in my county and, as the hon. Gentleman's county is not dissimilar, he may also have seen that happen. Many of the victims are young people and motorcyclists. We believe that the new European standards support our domestic strategy for reducing road casualties, which are running at more than 3,000 people killed and 30,000 people seriously injured each year. The new multi-purpose test centresknown as MPTCswill be suitable for the delivery of practical driving tests for learner car drivers and motorcyclists. Where possible, some centres will also be used for the delivery of lorry and bus driving tests. They will also provide modern facilities that are fully compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and which support the Government's wider sustainability agenda.
	The Driving Standards Agency is seeking to develop around 60 MPTCs across the country, which is up to 20 more than it concluded would be required to meet existing service standard criteria. I understand that, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, an MPTC is to be located at Peterborough. That is within the 30-mile limit needed to meet current service levels. As he said, the Spalding driving test centre is therefore being co-located at Peterborough MPTC to maximise utilisation.
	In addition to Peterborough, which is approximately 19 miles from the Spalding area, there are alternative local test centres within the 30-mile limit: Boston is about 14 miles from the hon. Gentleman's constituency, Grantham about 29, Wisbech about 19, and King's Lynn about 27.
	Peterborough MPTC will be resourced so that waiting time targets for car driving and motorcycle tests are not compromised by the changes. However, I understand that the hon. Gentleman is due to meet the DSA chief executive in a few weeks to discuss that as well.
	On post office closures, I should say at the outset that Ministers do not play a direct role in decisions to close or retain individual Post Offices. I know that, as in the past, I have been through the process of trying to save post offices in my own constituency. More recently, two post offices in my area were proposed for closure. I tried to save both and succeeded in saving one. I understand how the closure of post offices unsettles local communities, but we must accept that they must be viable. The Government are putting in some 1.7 billion in subsidy
	 The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker  adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	 Adjourned at thirteen minutes to Nine o ' clock.
	Correction
	 Official Report, 24 June 2008: In column 268, in closing procedure, first paragraph, delete Deputy.